Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Anomaly Tracker MCP

Anomaly Tracker MCP

by forgemeshlabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

claude_feature_watch

Discover recently merged features from Anthropic/Claude repos: SDK changes, Claude Code updates, and new capabilities. Scans key repos within a configurable lookback window.

Instructions

Watch Anthropic/Claude repos for recently merged features — SDK changes, Claude Code updates, new capabilities. Scans anthropic-sdk-python, anthropic-sdk-typescript, claude-code, courses, and anthropic-cookbook. Costs $0.02 USDC on Base mainnet.

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": "claude_feature_watch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoLookback window in days, 1-30 (default: 7)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.0.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions cost and scanning action but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. Key behavioral aspects are missing.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, and includes cost information without any wasted words. Highly concise.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, repos scanned, cost, and parameter. It could mention the return format or behavior on no results, but is otherwise complete.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'days', which is adequately described in the schema. The tool description does not add any extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool watches Anthropic/Claude repos for recently merged features, lists specific repos (SDK, TypeScript, Claude Code, courses, cookbook), and mentions cost. It differentiates from sibling tools like github_watch and repo_scan by its specific focus on Anthropic/Claude feature updates.

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?

The description implies usage for checking recent features from these repos but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_watch or repo_scan. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools