Retrieve unfiltered task modifications after a given revision to sync project plans. Poll pages until through_revision, apply updates by task ID, and fetch full tasks using event revision.
Read unfiltered task changes after_revision. Apply by task ID; after all pages poll from through_revision. Get full task using event revision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| after_revision | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Read' implies a safe read and 'after all pages poll' hints at pagination, but there is no disclosure of auth requirements, rate limits, ordering, or what 'unfiltered' actually means for the returned data.
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?
Three short sentences are terse, but the brevity comes at the cost of coherence: each sentence introduces a new cryptic term rather than building a usable picture, so the text is under-specified rather than concise.
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?
A 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage needs a substantial description, but this one omits parameter meanings and introduces phantom fields. An agent cannot reliably invoke it from this text alone.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, yet it explains only after_revision and instead references non-existent parameters (through_revision, 'event revision', 'task ID' despite no task_id field). The required project_id and the limit/cursor parameters are never addressed, making the description actively misleading.
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 name 'changes' is vague, and while 'Read unfiltered task changes after_revision' gestures at a verb+resource, the follow-up sentences ('Apply by task ID', 'poll from through_revision', 'Get full task using event revision') reference entities that don't exist and leave the actual purpose muddled. No differentiation from siblings like get_detail or project_view.
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?
'after all pages poll from through_revision' hints at a polling/pagination workflow, but through_revision is not a parameter, so the guidance is unusable. There is no statement of when to use this versus sibling tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.