Retrieve diffs for watched skills since a specified ISO timestamp to review what was modified.
Diffs for watched skills since an ISO time
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": "changes"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that results are scoped to watched skills and filtered by an ISO time, while omitting what a diff contains, whether output is paginated, what happens if 'since' is omitted, and any permission or rate-limit constraints.
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 with no wasted wording, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. Brevity comes at the cost of missing information an agent needs to call the tool correctly.
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 annotations, no output schema, and a bare input schema, the description should explain scope, default behavior, and return shape. It instead gives only a terse one-line summary, leaving key details for an agent to guess.
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 single parameter is undocumented in the schema (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining that 'since' expects an ISO time. It still does not state whether the parameter is optional in practice, what the default is when omitted, or timezone handling.
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 names a verb ('Diffs') and a resource ('watched skills') plus a time constraint, which is more than a tautology. However, 'Diffs' is ambiguous about what is actually returned, and the description does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like versions, list_watches, or search.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives. An agent can infer it applies to watched skills, but it must guess how this differs from versions or list_watches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.