Small Print

Has the small print changed since it was approved?

changed_since_approval

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify if a server's small print changed since a reviewed version, hash, or date. Returns UNCHANGED, CHANGED, or UNKNOWN with details, so you know if prior approval still holds.

Instructions

Yes or no, before using a server or skill: has its small print changed 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 read-only/idempotent annotations, it discloses the transport and privacy profile (one HTTPS GET to smallprint.dev per call, no account, no key, nothing about the caller sent, target never run or contacted), rate limiting (one entry per request, 429 means wait a minute), error behavior for unknown names, and the critical UNKNOWN-is-not-safe semantic. That is materially richer than the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core question and the three possible answer prefixes, and every clause carries operational content. It is dense and somewhat run-on in the middle, but there is no filler sentence to cut.

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?

For a two-param read tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description still supplies what structured fields cannot: the answer vocabulary, the UNKNOWN interpretation, rate-limit and error behavior. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents both parameters fully, including registry prefixes and the three accepted forms of 'approved'. The description only echoes the accepted forms ('version, content hash or date') without adding syntax beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific check ('has its small print changed since the version, content hash or date that was reviewed') with a concrete yes/no outcome, and explicitly names the siblings it is not (lookup_entry, changes_since). An agent can differentiate it from all three siblings without opening a schema.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('use it on every run when an approval is on file, instead of re-reading the tools'), an alternative for the no-approval case ('use lookup_entry when nothing was approved yet'), and a follow-up path ('changes_since to read the diffs after a CHANGED answer'). When-to-use, when-not, and alternatives are all covered.

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

Deploy Server