Portale Offerte MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

controlla_aggiornamenti

Read-only

Checks GitHub for a more recent version of the Portale Offerte MCP server once per conversation, helping clients identify when an update is available.

Instructions

Controlla se su GitHub c'e una versione piu recente di questo server (una volta per conversazione).

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": "controlla_aggiornamenti"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`messaggio`	Yes
`ultimo_commit`	Yes
`commit_installato`	Yes
`versione_installata`	Yes
`aggiornamento_disponibile`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety and network profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the call reaches out to GitHub and is throttled to once per conversation, which is not derivable from the annotations. It omits failure/latency behavior and what happens when no update exists.

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?

A single short sentence that leads with the action and appends the rate constraint in parentheses. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers purpose plus the once-per-conversation rule. Only the outcome handling (update available vs not) is left implicit, a minor gap for such a simple tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. No parameter text is required here.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and object: checking GitHub for a newer version of this server. That is unambiguous and clearly unrelated to the sibling tools (offers, prices, vendors), though it never names or contrasts any sibling explicitly, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 parenthetical '(una volta per conversazione)' gives a concrete usage constraint, telling the agent not to repeat the call. It does not say when in a conversation the check is appropriate, nor what to do if an update is found, so guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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

Deploy Server