Retrieves every stored version of a dataset record and shows field-level changes using source, type, and key, so you can audit how job data evolved.
Alle gespeicherten Versionen eines Datensatzes mit feldgenauen Änderungen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| art | Yes | z. B. 'stelle_detail' | |
| quelle | Yes | z. B. 'ba_jobsuche' | |
| schluessel | Yes | z. B. die refnr |
| 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that changes are field-accurate, which provides useful context about return granularity, but does not disclose ordering, pagination, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations imply.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It directly conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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 that annotations cover safety and an output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context by stating what is returned (all versions with field-level changes). It could be more complete by mentioning usage scenarios or record identification, but the structured fields compensate.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (quelle, art, schluessel). The description does not elaborate on parameter meaning or format beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage.
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 that it returns all stored versions of a record with field-level changes, which is a specific resource and output. However, it does not name or distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_changes, leaving ambiguity about when to choose this tool over a similar one.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description only implies usage by stating what is returned, but an agent must infer the appropriate context without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.