list_update_set_changesList all customer updates within a specified update set using its sys_id. Optionally set a limit for the number of changes returned.
List all customer updates (changes) within an update set
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of changes to return | |
| update_set_sys_id | Yes | The sys_id of the update set |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description's 'List' wording is consistent with those. It adds the scope ('within an update set') without contradicting annotations, though it does not provide extra behavioral detail such as ordering or empty-result behavior.
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, direct sentence with no redundant or promotional language. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simple purpose.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read-only listing tool, the description is mostly sufficient. However, with no output schema, it does not clarify the return format, fields, or pagination behavior, which could leave some ambiguity about what 'changes' includes.
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 schema covers both parameters with concise descriptions, so the description adds little beyond the schema. The semantics of 'update_set_sys_id' are fairly self-explanatory, but no additional context is given about how the limit affects results or what kind of identifier is expected.
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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('customer updates within an update set'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_update_sets and list_records. The term 'customer updates (changes)' is slightly jargon-heavy but understandable in context.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_records or get_update_set. The description implies a straightforward listing operation but does not state conditions or contexts where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.