Review recent changes made by team members. Filter by user or file to track specific edits and monitor collaborative project activity.
View recent changes made by all team members.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of changes to show (default: 20) | |
| user_id | No | Filter by specific user | |
| file_path | No | Filter by specific file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; 'View' does indicate a non-mutating operation, but no details are given about ordering, pagination, or the exact meaning of 'all team members'. The description is not misleading, but it is thin on behavioral disclosure.
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 filler. It clearly states the action, the target resource, and the scope, making every word earn 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?
For a simple tool with three optional parameters, the description is minimally adequate, but with no output schema it does not say what the returned change entries contain. It also leaves ambiguity about whether 'changes' means file modifications, permissions changes, or another audit trail.
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 baseline is 3 even though the description itself adds no parameter-level guidance. The schema already documents limit, user_id, and file_path, but the description does not explain how these filters interact.
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 uses a specific verb ('view') and identifies the resource as 'recent changes made by all team members', which separates it from file read/write siblings. However, it does not specify whether these changes are file edits, access changes, or some other kind of history.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of sibling tools like view_stats, list_files, or read_file. There are no stated exclusions, alternatives, or contextual hints beyond the implied purpose of viewing activity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.