Skip to main content
Glama

track_changes

Monitor manuscript modifications by comparing current files against previous versions using timestamps, file patterns, and detail levels to track writing progress.

Instructions

Show what changed since timestamp

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_pathNoPath to manuscript directory (defaults to current directory)
sinceNoTimestamp or relative time
scopeNoFile scope pattern
summary_levelNoSummary detail levelfile

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function for the 'track_changes' tool. It extracts 'since' and 'scope' from args, fetches current writing stats, and returns a structure with the since timestamp, an empty changes array (placeholder for actual diff logic), and stats.
    private async trackChanges(args: Record<string, unknown>) {
      const since = args.since as string | undefined;
      const scope = args.scope as string | undefined;
    
      const stats = await this.writersAid.getStats({ scope });
    
      return {
        since,
        changes: [],
        stats,
      };
    }
  • The input schema definition for the 'track_changes' tool, including parameters like project_path, since, scope, and summary_level.
    {
      name: "track_changes",
      description: "Show what changed since timestamp",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          project_path: { type: "string", description: "Path to manuscript directory (defaults to current directory)" },
          since: { type: "string", description: "Timestamp or relative time" },
          scope: { type: "string", description: "File scope pattern" },
          summary_level: {
            type: "string",
            enum: ["section", "file", "line"],
            description: "Summary detail level",
            default: "file",
          },
        },
      },
    },
  • The switch case in handleTool method that registers and dispatches to the trackChanges handler for the 'track_changes' tool.
    case "track_changes":
      return this.trackChanges(args);
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool shows changes but fails to describe key behaviors like output format (e.g., list of files, diff summaries), pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool operates beyond its basic purpose.

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?

The description is extremely concise with a single sentence ('Show what changed since timestamp'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it efficient and well-structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and usage context, which are crucial for an agent to invoke it correctly. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these gaps in overall tool understanding.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing details for all parameters. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond implying a 'since' parameter for timestamp filtering, which is already covered in the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters without extra value from the description.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('what changed'), indicating it displays modifications. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'track_concept_evolution' or 'track_file_evolution', which might have overlapping functionality, leaving some ambiguity in sibling distinction.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'track_concept_evolution' or 'track_file_evolution', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only implies usage based on needing to see changes since a timestamp, which is insufficient for informed tool selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/xiaolai/claude-writers-aid-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server