excalidraw-architect-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

kg_diff

Compare the current architecture knowledge file against a git reference to reveal exactly how your architecture changed since that commit.

Instructions

Show how the architecture changed since a git ref (default HEAD).

Compares the current knowledge file against its version at ref.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "kg_diff"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref`	No		HEAD
`graph_path`	No		.claude/architecture.md

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.3Jun 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states that the tool compares the current file against a version at a git ref, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm safety, permissions, or side effects. With an output schema present, the behavior is partially communicated.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the key purpose and a clarifying follow-up. Every word adds value, no redundancy. The structure is optimal for quick parsing.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers the core functionality. However, it lacks details on parameter roles, comparison scope, and when to use it over similar tools. For a tool with an output schema and many siblings, more context would help decision-making.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no explanations for parameters. The description does not elaborate on 'ref' or 'graph_path' beyond their defaults. It fails to add meaning or context for how these parameters affect the diff, leaving the agent to infer from defaults.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Show how the architecture changed since a git ref'. It specifies the resource (architecture) and action (show diff). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like kg_drift, the git ref mechanism is distinct enough to imply its use case.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kg_drift or kg_info. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or expected contexts. The description only mentions defaults but no usage scenarios.

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