Retrieve schedule changes from the last 90 days, including additions, deadline updates, and omissions. Use the after parameter with the previous nextCursor to paginate results.
최근 90일의 추가·기한/상태 변경·누락 기록. after에 이전 nextCursor를 넣습니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | ||
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — a 90-day retention window and cursor-based pagination — but says nothing about what happens outside that window, ordering, or rate limits.
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 short sentences with zero filler; the scope (90 days, change types) is front-loaded and the pagination instruction follows. Every clause earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description should ideally state that results are paginated with a nextCursor — it only implies this. The `limit` parameter and the return structure remain unexplained, leaving the agent to infer the pagination contract from one hint.
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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does explain `after` as the previous nextCursor, which the bare integer schema does not, but `limit` is left completely unaddressed. Partial compensation only.
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 names the resource and its content precisely: additions, due-date/status changes, and missed records over the last 90 days. An agent can tell it returns a change log, not a schedule view. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_agenda or list_personal_tasks, which also surface schedule data.
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 second sentence implicitly defines the usage pattern: pass the previous nextCursor in `after` to page through results. That is useful procedural context, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance and no mention of prerequisites or when the 90-day window makes it inapplicable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.