Skip to main content
Glama

config_template_drift

Read-only

Compare networks bound to a config template against template settings and report every drifted key with expected vs actual values.

Instructions

[READ] For networks bound to a config template, list drifted settings.

Compares each network bound to the template against the template's settings
by exact value and reports expected-vs-actual for every drifted key. Pure
analysis over injected data — no live pull.

Args:
    template: {id, name, settings:{key: value}} — the config template.
    networks: rows {networkId, name, boundTemplateId, settings:{key: value}};
        only those whose boundTemplateId matches template['id'] are checked.
    limit: Max rows in the drifted list (default 100). The result carries
        'returned'/'limit'/'truncated'; re-run with a higher limit when
        'truncated' is true rather than treating the list as complete.

Returns dict: {templateId, templateName, boundNetworks, driftedCount,
    compliantCount, settingsChecked, driftedNetworks:[{networkId, name,
    deviations:[{setting, expected, actual}]}], returned, limit, truncated,
    note}.

Example: config_template_drift(
    template={"id":"T1","name":"branch","settings":{"timezone":"UTC"}},
    networks=[{"networkId":"N1","boundTemplateId":"T1",
               "settings":{"timezone":"PST"}}]).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
networksYes
templateYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses key behavioral traits: pure analysis over injected data with 'no live pull', exact-value comparison semantics, and explicit truncation handling ('re-run with a higher limit when truncated is true rather than treating the list as complete'). This is rich, non-obvious context that an agent cannot get from structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with a [READ] marker and a one-line purpose before structured Args/Returns/Example sections. It is somewhat long, but the length is justified by the nested-object params and zero schema coverage; every section carries needed information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, but the description fully enumerates the return dict (templateId, boundNetworks, driftedCount, compliantCount, driftedNetworks with per-setting deviations, returned/limit/truncated, note). Combined with the documented args and a worked example, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema coverage and nested objects, the description fully compensates: it documents the template shape {id, name, settings}, the networks row shape {networkId, name, boundTemplateId, settings}, the matching rule on boundTemplateId, and the limit default/truncation behavior. This is exactly what the schema lacks.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('list drifted settings') and precise scope ('networks bound to a config template'), then explains the comparison semantics. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like bind_network_to_template and unbind_network_from_template without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It establishes the context (networks bound to a config template, exact-value comparison) but never states explicit when-to-use vs when-not, nor names an alternative. Usage is implied by the 'only those whose boundTemplateId matches' clause rather than spelled out.

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