Analyze npm package changelogs and release history to identify notable changes and version updates.
Analyze changelog and release history of packages
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| packages | Yes | List of package names to analyze changelogs for | |
| ignoreCache | No | Force a fresh lookup, ignoring the cache |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | No | ||
| results | No | ||
| summary | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.24.0v1.23.0v1.20.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / ignoreCacheAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Force a fresh lookup, ignoring the cache",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description adds no behavioral context. It doesn't mention that it fetches from GitHub, caching behavior (though ignoreCache param exists), or any rate limits. The description should expand on what 'analyze' entails.
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 concise sentence that gets the point across without fluff. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it could be slightly more structured with a brief note on usage.
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 presence of a complete input and output schema, plus annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it misses context about the data source (GitHub) and the nature of the analysis, which would help an agent understand what to expect.
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 already documents both parameters. The description does not add additional meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate as it does not repeat or contradict the 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 the verb 'Analyze' and the resource 'changelog and release history of packages', effectively distinguishing it from siblings like npmVersions or npmLatest. However, it could be more specific about the source (GitHub) and output.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that npmLatest is for single version queries or that this tool is for historical analysis.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.