Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
irkumo-mcp

irkumo-mcp

by ozumin-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_changes

Retrieve data change history since a specified time or version to track updates, filter by column, and limit returned rows.

Instructions

指定時点以降のデータ変更履歴を取得します (消費クレジット: 返された行数｡1行につき1クレジット)｡

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": {
      "since": "<since>"
    },
    "name": "list_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo取得件数 (1~1000｡既定50)
sinceYes変更の取得開始時点 (ISO 8601 時刻またはデータバージョン)
columnNo特定の列名による絞り込み (例: ir_url)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add genuinely useful context the schema lacks: credit consumption of one credit per returned row. However, it omits auth requirements, whether deletions are included, pagination/ordering behavior, and what the returned history contains.

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 front-loaded sentence giving purpose followed by the cost model. No filler, no repetition of the name, and every clause carries information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description should ideally outline what the change history contains, but it only covers purpose and cost. For a read tool with three parameters and zero annotations, this is adequate but leaves notable gaps about the returned data and access requirements.

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 all three parameters (limit, since, column) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail about them, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: retrieving the data change history for a given point in time onward. The purpose is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the company/balance-oriented siblings. It does not, however, explicitly name or differentiate itself from any alternative tool.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The phrase 'since a specified point in time' only implicitly suggests change-tracking use, which is too thin to count as guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools