get_scan_trendsTrack audit score history across repeated scans to determine if a website is improving or regressing over time.
Score history per URL across repeated scans — whether a site is improving or regressing over time. Returns nothing useful for a site scanned only once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the behavioral nuance that the tool returns nothing useful for a site scanned only once and that it surfaces trends, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe return shape, pagination, or any other noteworthy runtime behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, highly efficient. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds a crucial edge-case warning. There is no filler or repetition, and the main concept is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (zero params, no output schema), the description gives enough for an agent to understand its purpose, expected data, and pitfall. It does not describe the exact output format, but the absence of an output schema and a straightforward read-only function makes that a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 for no parameters applies, and the description's focus on behavior aligns with the empty input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states this tool returns score history per URL across repeated scans and indicates trend direction. It differentiates from siblings like get_scan_report through the 'repeated scans' framing, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any alternative tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The use case is clear: use this when you need to see whether a site is improving or regressing across multiple scans. It also gives a when-not case ('site scanned only once'), but it does not explicitly mention sibling tools that should be used instead, such as get_scan_report or list_scans, so usage guidance is strong but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.