compare_saved_versionsCompare two Saved Versions and return per-file additions, removals, modifications, and compact diffs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | The app ID | |
| max_diff_chars | No | ||
| base_snapshot_id | Yes | Older/base snapshot ID | |
| target_snapshot_id | Yes | Newer/target snapshot ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the output format (per-file changes and diffs) but does not elaborate on any other behaviors such as ordering, size limits, or error handling. With annotations carrying the core transparency, a 3 is appropriate.
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, concise sentence that states the action, resource, and expected output types. It is front-loaded with the operation and immediately provides the key information without any filler.
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 read-only comparison tool, the description covers the essential output (what the tool returns) and, thanks to annotations, the side-effect profile. It does not discuss any pagination or limits on the diff size (though max_diff_chars parameter exists), but given the simplicity of the operation and the existing annotation coverage, it is largely complete.
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 75% (three of four parameters have descriptions; max_diff_chars lacks one but has a default). The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as clarifying the difference between base_snapshot_id and target_snapshot_id. Since the schema covers most parameter details, the description adds minimal value.
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 verb 'compare' and the resource 'two Saved Versions', and specifies the output: per-file additions, removals, modifications, and compact diffs. It is specific enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely related 'compare_current_to_version'.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare_current_to_version' or 'list_saved_versions'. The description does not mention prerequisites or selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer based on the resource names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but there are some overlapping pairs like read_app_file/read_app_files and create_entity_records vs seed_entity, which could cause misselection. Singular/plural variants and compatibility tools introduce minor ambiguity, but the majority are well-separated.
Tool names predominantly follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_app, get_entities, delete_secret). There are some variations like 'agency_create_client' and 'seed_entity' that deviate slightly, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.
With 82 tools, the server is far above the typical range and feels overwhelming. Even for a full platform API, the count is extreme and likely increases selection complexity. A more curated set would improve navigability without sacrificing capability.
The tool surface is exceptionally comprehensive, covering app lifecycle, file operations, entity CRUD, versioning, A/B testing, secrets, integrations, domains, agents, scheduling, policies, and member management. No obvious missing operations for the platform's scope; it even includes validation and workflow guidance tools.