Retrieve documents updated within a specified number of days, with optional filtering by source.
최근 N일 내 갱신된 문서(커밋/스레드/문서). source로 필터 가능.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| source | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates read-only retrieval of recent activity and the source filter, but omits edge cases: how days are counted, whether results are ordered, what happens with null source, and whether it covers commits/threads/documents together. It does not contradict annotations, but it is underspecifing.
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?
One short Korean sentence with no filler; the key concepts of the N-day window and source filter are front-loaded. Minor clarity tax comes from the ambiguous parenthetical '커밋/스레드/문서', but overall it is appropriately concise.
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?
Even though the output schema covers the return shape, the definition remains incomplete for a 3-parameter tool: it lacks limit semantics, parameter value guidance, and routing/usage context relative to sibling tools. An agent could call it with defaults but would be unsure how to tune limit or interpret source.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must document the parameters itself. It maps 'days' to N days and implies 'source' filters results, but it never explains 'limit' semantics or the allowed/meaning of source values. This leaves one of three parameters entirely undocumented.
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?
States its resource ('documents updated within N days') and a filter ('by source'), distinguishing it from sibling search tools in name and scope. It doesn't explicitly use a verb like 'list' or define what a 'source' or a documented 'change' is, which leaves slight ambiguity.
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 on when to choose recent_changes over siblings such as recent_prs, search, or get_document. The only usage hint is the mention of source filtering; there are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.