Reveal output changes and resource drift since the last apply, with attribute diffs and sensitive outputs masked, to review edits made outside Terraform.
Output changes and resource_drift: what changed OUTSIDE Terraform (console edits, other tools) since the last apply, with masked attribute diffs. Sensitive outputs are masked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| limit | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: sensitive output values are masked and attribute diffs are also masked. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether it reads local state vs remote backend (implying auth needs), or how the 'limit' parameter paginates results.
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?
Two short sentences with the key scope ('OUTSIDE Terraform ... since the last apply') front-loaded. Minor waste from restating masking twice ('masked attribute diffs' then 'Sensitive outputs are masked'), but nothing is bloated.
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?
A return-value explanation is unnecessary because an output schema exists, and the drift concept is conveyed. Still, for an unannotated two-parameter tool the description leaves the semantics of both inputs and the read/auth profile unaddressed, which is a real gap for correct invocation.
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 both parameters are undocumented in the schema, and the description adds nothing about them. It never explains what 'path' points to (working directory? state file?) or what 'limit' caps (outputs, drift entries, or both).
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 a specific verb+resource pair: it reports output changes and resource drift, and clarifies drift as changes made OUTSIDE Terraform since the last apply. That out-of-band framing distinguishes it conceptually from plan-based siblings like plan_summary and compare_plans, though the compound 'outputs + drift' scope is not fully disentangled.
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?
The phrase 'since the last apply' implies the tool is for detecting out-of-band drift rather than diffing two plans, which is an implicit routing hint versus list_changes or diff_resource. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is given, so the agent must infer the selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.