Frontier Signal MCP

Baseline deltas

deltas

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns recorded change notes for a baseline cut versus the previous cut; use it to review what changed, not to compute new diffs.

Instructions

Return deltas_vs_prev (and recheck notes, if any) for a baseline cut.

These are the change notes recorded on that JSON file versus the previous cut. This tool does not compute new diffs.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "deltas"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`observed`	No	Baseline date YYYY-MM-DD. Omit for the latest committed cut.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`recheck`	No
`observed`	Yes
`deltas_vs_prev`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds the meaningful fact that the deltas are stored notes from the file rather than freshly computed, but says nothing about behavior when no previous cut exists or when 'recheck notes' is absent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the return payload and followed by the negative constraint. Minor waste in restating the same idea twice ('change notes recorded ... versus the previous cut'), but nothing extraneous.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With one optional parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema and read-only annotations, the definition covers what an agent needs. The residual gap is that the returned field names ('deltas_vs_prev', 'recheck notes') are never explained in plain language.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single optional 'observed' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description carries no burden. Its phrase 'for a baseline cut' loosely ties to that date argument but adds no format or default detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('deltas_vs_prev' plus 'recheck notes') scoped to a baseline cut, and rules out diff computation. The field-name jargon is opaque without the output schema, but the operation is recognizable as a read of pre-recorded change notes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: 'for a baseline cut' plus the exclusion 'does not compute new diffs' tells the agent not to call this to generate a diff, but no sibling alternative is named and no positive when-to-use condition is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server