diff-checkerSide-by-side text and code diff comparison.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| left | Yes | Left/original text to compare | |
| right | Yes | Right/modified text to compare | |
| format | No | Output format (unified=git-style diff, json=structured, stats=summary only) | unified |
| leftName | No | Label for left/original text | Original |
| rightName | No | Label for right/modified text | Modified |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / formatAdded value: +{
+ "default": "unified",
+ "description": "Output format (unified=git-style diff, json=structured, stats=summary only)",
+ "enum": [
+ "unified",
+ "json",
+ "stats"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / leftAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Left/original text to compare",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / leftNameAdded value: +{
+ "default": "Original",
+ "description": "Label for left/original text",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / rightAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Right/modified text to compare",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / rightNameAdded value: +{
+ "default": "Modified",
+ "description": "Label for right/modified text",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "left",
+ "right"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'side-by-side' comparison, which may imply a visual diff, but the schema shows output can be unified, JSON, or stats. This could mislead users about the actual output formats. No information about limitations, performance, or error handling is provided.
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 with no filler, front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could include more detail without becoming verbose. No wasted words, but slightly under-specified for completeness.
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?
Given 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not mention the configurable output formats, which are important for correct usage. The phrase 'side-by-side' conflicts with the unified format option, leaving users unaware of the tool's full capabilities. The description plus schema cover basic inputs, but the overall behavior and variants are not communicated.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Left/right, format, and label fields are already well documented in the schema, so the description provides no additional semantic 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 states the tool performs diff comparison on text and code, specifically in a side-by-side view. It clearly identifies the resource and action, though it lacks an explicit verb. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'diff', but there is no direct differentiation from similar tools like similarity-checker.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not tell when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. With sibling tools like similarity-checker, users might be unsure which comparison tool to choose, but the description offers no clarification.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as bg-remover, bg-remover-pro, pro-matting, and takumi all performing background removal, and upscaler/upscaler-pro being redundant. With 202 tools, an agent may easily select the wrong one despite detailed descriptions.
Most tools use a consistent kebab-case format with descriptive names like pdf-compress, image-resizer, and tax-return-calc. Exceptions like 'takumi', 'pro-matting', and '-pro' suffixes (bg-remover-pro, upscaler-pro) are minor deviations relative to the total.
202 tools is an extreme mismatch for an MCP server, far exceeding the typical 3-15 well-scoped range. The sheer volume makes it unwieldy for an agent to efficiently navigate and select the right tool.
The tool set provides extensive coverage across many domains, including PDF operations (20+ tools), image editing, financial calculations, e-commerce fee estimation, and YouTube utilities. Minor gaps exist in cross-tool integration, but the breadth is highly comprehensive for the apparent purpose.