Retrieve a memory change log to see what was added, modified, removed, or restored since a given time, with filters for source, event type, and limit.
Änderungsprotokoll des Gedächtnisses: was ist neu, geändert, verschwunden oder wieder aufgetaucht.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| art | No | ||
| seit | No | z. B. '24h', '7d', '2026-10-01' | |
| limit | No | ||
| quelle | No | ||
| ereignis | No |
| 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?
Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the domain-level behavior that the tool reports a change log across four change types, but this information largely duplicates the `ereignis` enum already present in the schema. With annotations carrying the operational traits, a 3 is appropriate: some added context, but no disclosure of ordering, pagination, or scope detail.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It immediately tells the agent what the tool is about without wasting words.
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?
The tool has five optional parameters, no required fields, and an output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed. However, the description provides no meaning for most parameters and no guidance on default behavior or scope. An agent still cannot confidently invoke this tool with the correct filters without guessing what `art` or `quelle` represent.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only `seit` has any description), and the description does nothing to explain the five parameters. It neither defines what `art`, `quelle`, `limit`, or `ereignis` mean nor how to combine them. Because low coverage requires the description to compensate and it does not, this scores a 1.
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 the resource (a change log of the memory) and enumerates the kinds of changes it captures: newly added, changed, disappeared, or reappeared. This is specific enough that an agent can grasp what the tool returns. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from sibling `get_history`, which likely overlaps in purpose, so a 4 rather than a 5.
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 description contains no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. It says nothing about when `get_changes` should be preferred over `get_history` or `search_knowledge`. An agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.