Track data quality trends across scans per dataset, showing score and issue series with latest score, delta, and direction. Filter by dataset to monitor drift over time.
Cross-scan quality trends per dataset (V7 data surface, ADR-065): score/issues series with latest score, delta and direction. Optionally filter to one dataset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dataset_id | No |
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=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the return contents (score/issues series with latest score, delta, direction), which matters because there is no output schema.
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 compact sentences with the data surface and return shape front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The parenthetical '(V7 data surface, ADR-065)' is internal provenance jargon that adds little for an agent but costs only a few 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?
For a read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers scope and returned fields adequately. Gaps remain around ordering, time range, and whether results paginate, but these are minor for this tool shape.
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 0% and the single dataset_id property has no description, so the description must compensate. It does partially by clarifying that the parameter narrows results to one dataset, but gives no format, ID source, or behavior when omitted.
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?
States a specific resource and output shape: cross-scan quality trends per dataset, returning score/issues series with latest score, delta and direction. This implicitly separates it from quality_score (a point score) and drift_latest, but it never names or explicitly contrasts those siblings.
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 only guidance is 'Optionally filter to one dataset,' which describes a parameter, not when to choose this tool. There is no statement of when to use trends_list versus quality_score, drift_latest, drift_compare or list_issues, and no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.