Gantry

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_change_reviews

Read-only

Retrieve change reviews for a session to inspect review status and decisions, with optional filters for basis, intent, pagination, and result limits.

Instructions

list change reviews

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`arguments`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.4.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of pagination behavior, ordering, what a review contains, or what happens with the after/basis/intent parameters.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The single phrase is technically concise but is pure under-specification rather than efficient communication. There is no structure, no front-loaded scope, and no sentence earns informational value.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a tool with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should carry significant explanatory weight. Instead it repeats the name, leaving the cursor semantics, result shape, and object parameter formats entirely undocumented.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and there are six nested arguments (session_id, after, basis, intent, limit, idempotency_key), several of them nested objects with no type detail. The description explains none of them, so an agent has no way to know what basis or intent should contain.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description "list change reviews" only restates the tool name, giving a bare verb+resource with no scope, filtering, or return information. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling get_change_review, which appears to fetch a single review.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 get_change_review or reviews. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is a paginated listing operation for a given session.

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