Track recent changes to MCP tool definitions across remote endpoints, including added, removed, or modified tools, new external addresses, and diff links.
The newest tool-definition changes HISTOR observed at remote MCP endpoints in the official registry: which tools were added, removed or modified, any outside address (host, e-mail, IP) that newly appeared, and a link to each full diff.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses what data is observed and returned (changes, newly appeared outside addresses, diff links) and implies a read-only monitoring operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is side-effect-free, whether authentication or rate limits apply, or how the diff links should be used.
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 that immediately names the core resource and then enumerates the returned information. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool's output, with no filler or redundancy.
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 and no annotations, the description does explain the key return values (added/removed/modified tools, outside addresses, diff links). However, it omits any explanation of the optional 'limit' parameter and provides no usage or safety context. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.
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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the single 'limit' parameter. While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning about what is being limited (e.g., number of changes returned) or how the limit interacts with the results.
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 gives a specific resource ('tool-definition changes HISTOR observed at remote MCP endpoints') and enumerates the exact output categories (added/removed/modified tools, new outside addresses, diff links). It is clear what the tool returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools histor_check and histor_server, so it falls short of a 5.
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 does not state when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which alternative tools exist. There is no guidance about prerequisites or intended scenarios. Usage must be inferred entirely from the purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.