Retrieve MCP server version and contract-change events from the RugSnare public drift feed; optionally filter by server name to spot silent tool-contract changes.
Report the current versions and contract-change events of popular MCP servers, from the public RugSnare drift-feed (daily scans). Optional filter by server name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| server | No | Server name to filter by (e.g. server-filesystem). Omit for all. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the source (public drift-feed) and freshness (daily scans), but says nothing about read-only semantics, rate limits, or the shape of the returned events beyond naming them.
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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the filtering detail last. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant or padded.
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 one-parameter, read-style report tool with no output schema, the description names what is returned (versions and contract-change events) and the data provenance. The main gap is the absence of any safety/behavior note to compensate for missing annotations.
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 coverage is 100% and there is a single optional parameter already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the filter and its default (omit for all), adding no format or example detail beyond what the schema provides.
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 verb (Report) plus the resource (current versions and contract-change events of popular MCP servers) and even names the data source (RugSnare drift-feed, daily scans). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling pins_report, so an agent must infer the split.
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 usage hint is that the server filter is optional and omitting it returns all. There is no guidance on when to choose this over pins_report or what scenario each serves, leaving routing between the two siblings to guesswork.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.