Small Print

Has the small print changed since it was approved?

changed_since_approval

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks whether a server or skill's small print has changed since the version, hash, or date you reviewed. Returns UNCHANGED, CHANGED, or UNKNOWN so you can decide if the existing approval still stands.

Instructions

Yes or no, before using a server or skill: has its small print moved since the version, content hash or date that was reviewed? The answer opens with UNCHANGED, CHANGED or UNKNOWN, then the releases that changed it since and their worst grade, then whether the review can stand. Use it on every run when an approval is on file, instead of re-reading the tools; use lookup_entry when nothing was approved yet and changes_since to read the diffs after a CHANGED answer. UNKNOWN means the approved version is not on record or its small print was never read, so nothing is compared; treat it as no answer, not as safe. Read-only: one HTTPS GET to smallprint.dev per call, no account, no key, nothing about the caller sent, and the server or skill asked about is never run or contacted. Rate limited to one entry per request; a 429 answer says to wait a minute. A name not in the catalog returns a plain error, not a guess.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	The entry, with its registry prefix when known: npm:@scope/name, pypi:name, mcp-registry:io.github.owner/server, skills.sh:owner/repo/skill, oci:ghcr.io/owner/image. A bare name is read as an npm package. Case-sensitive, up to 300 characters.
`approved`	Yes	What was reviewed: a version string exactly as published (1.4.2), the 64-character hex content hash from an earlier answer, or an ISO date YYYY-MM-DD. A date compares against releases published after it.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`advisories`	Yes
`worstGrade`	Yes
`canonicalName`	Yes
`latestVersion`	Yes
`releasesSince`	Yes
`latestContentHash`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.1.1Sep 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the exact network behavior (one HTTPS GET to smallprint.dev), privacy guarantees (nothing about the caller sent), rate limiting (429 means wait a minute), and error behavior (name not in catalog returns a plain error). It also clarifies the meaning of UNKNOWN, which is valuable safety-relevant context not present in annotations or schema.

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?

The description is dense but every clause carries useful information: purpose, output format, usage routing, UNKNOWN semantics, read-only/network details, rate limit, and error behavior. The opening 'Yes or no' is slightly at odds with the three-value answer (UNCHANGED/CHANGED/UNKNOWN), but this is minor and the structure is otherwise efficient and front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary operational aspects: when to call it, what the answer looks like, what UNKNOWN means, privacy/network properties, rate limits, and error handling. An agent has enough information to call this tool correctly in all normal situations.

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%, so both the name and approved parameters are already well documented with formats, length limits, and examples. The description adds a bit of contextual framing (approved can be version, hash, or date) but does not materially expand on what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 states the exact purpose: checking whether a server or skill's small print has changed since an approved version, content hash, or review date. It also distinguishes the answer statuses (UNCHANGED, CHANGED, UNKNOWN) and names sibling tools, so an agent can tell this apart from lookup_entry, changes_since, and advisories_for without opening their schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it on every run when an approval is on file' and explicitly says to use lookup_entry when nothing was approved yet and changes_since after a CHANGED answer. It also states that UNKNOWN should be treated as 'no answer, not as safe,' which is a clear behavioral condition for invocation.

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

Deploy Server