Retrieve recent changes made to a project or component across connected AI apps, filtering by time window and recording which app, model, and machine made each change.
Get recent changes. Use compact=True to save tokens.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hours | No | ||
| compact | No | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| component_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds only that compact=True saves tokens, which is a minor operational hint. It omits what the changes represent, time window behavior, and output format.
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 short sentences with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified rather than concise, and the compact hint is placed without context.
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 four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no description of what 'recent changes' entails, the definition is incomplete. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool without guessing parameter meanings.
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 description coverage is 0%, so parameters (hours, compact, project_id, component_id) are undocumented. The description only mentions compact's purpose, leaving hours, project_id, and component_id without any semantic explanation.
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 states a verb and resource (get recent changes), which is minimally clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like history or get_context. It's vague on what 'changes' refers to (logs? code? memory?).
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as history or get_context. The only usage hint is about compact mode, not about selecting the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.