schema_diffCompare current database schema to the last snapshot to detect changes and manage database evolution.
Compare the current schema against the last snapshot taken with snapshot_schema.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| database | No | Database key (format: "type:name") |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not mention side effects, read-only nature, or safety. While a diff operation is likely non-destructive, this is not explicitly disclosed, leaving uncertainty.
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 redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary detail.
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 the low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (indicated by the context), the description sufficiently covers the purpose and parameter. No additional context is required for a user to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The single parameter 'database' has a description with a format hint ('type:name'), which aids understanding. However, the meaning of null (default) is not explained, and there is no elaboration on how the database key is used in the comparison.
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 clearly states the action (compare), the subject (current schema), and the reference (last snapshot). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like snapshot_schema and schema by conveying a comparison operation.
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?
It implies the need for a previous snapshot (taken with snapshot_schema) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others, such as schema or query_history. No direct guidance on conditions or alternatives is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.