Compare two or more values or documents.
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": {
"items": "<items>"
},
"name": "compare"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | Parameter: items |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / itemsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Parameter: items",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "items"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it. It does not disclose the return shape (boolean, diff, score), case/format sensitivity, how multiple items are handled, or any limits on input size.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Nothing in the sentence earns its place beyond restating the tool name.
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?
With one opaque parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description needed to explain input encoding and return semantics. It supplies neither, leaving the agent unable to invoke the tool with confidence.
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 coverage is nominally 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies, but the schema text is a placeholder ("Parameter: items") that conveys no meaning. The description does not clarify whether items is a delimited list, a JSON array encoded as a string, or a document reference — a real gap the schema does not fill.
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 names a verb ("compare") and a loose resource ("values or documents"), but never says what kind of comparison is performed — equality, diff, ordering, or similarity. With siblings like diff, text_diff, hash_compare, semver_compare, levenshtein, and word_similarity in the namespace, an agent cannot tell which comparison tool this is.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite a crowded field of comparison siblings. The agent is left to guess whether this is the right tool for diffing text, checking equality, or ordering values.
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.