Lists tracked changes in an open Word document—showing revision type, author, date, and text snippet—so you can review edits without modifying the file.
List tracked changes (revisions) in the document: type (insertion/deletion), author, date and a text snippet. Read-only; Office.js cannot create tracked changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| documentId | No | Target document ID from list_documents. Optional when only one document is connected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description handles the key behavioral fact well: it is read-only and Office.js cannot create tracked changes. It also describes the returned fields, though it omits ordering, pagination, and whether resolved or rejected changes are included.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return fields, then the read-only limitation. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant text.
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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned (type, author, date, snippet) and the read-only constraint. Minor omissions such as ordering or pagination are unlikely to block correct invocation.
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?
There is one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents documentId. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource: 'List tracked changes (revisions) in the document', and enumerates the returned fields. It clearly distinguishes this from general document reads, though it does not name a specific sibling tool as an alternative.
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?
Usage is implied by the purpose: use it to list revisions in a document. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions beyond the read-only note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.