Waggle-mcp

diff

Identify differences between two .abhi memory files, reporting added, removed, and updated nodes and edges, plus semantic changes.

Instructions

Compare two .abhi memory files (waggle diff). Reports structural graph changes — added/removed/updated nodes and edges — plus lightweight semantic changes. The output is the screenshot that goes on the homepage.

Tool call template

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": {
      "input_path_a": "<input_path_a>",
      "input_path_b": "<input_path_b>"
    },
    "name": "diff"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input_path_a`	Yes	Path to the first .abhi file (base / ours).
`input_path_b`	Yes	Path to the second .abhi file (theirs / feature branch).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.1.17Jun 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the output is a screenshot for the homepage, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or has side effects such as file creation. Critical behavioral context is missing.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise, consisting of two sentences. The first communicates the primary action and result, and the second adds output detail. No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the main function but lacks detail about the output format (e.g., screenshot as an image file). Since there is no output schema, the description should specify what the tool returns in terms the agent can use.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by interpreting 'input_path_a' as base/ours and 'input_path_b' as theirs/feature branch, providing meaningful context beyond the schema's literal path descriptions.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states it compares two .abhi files and reports structural and semantic changes. The verb 'Compare' and resource 'two .abhi memory files' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'graph_diff', which may cause confusion.

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?

The description implies usage for comparing .abhi files to see differences, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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