Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Trace MCP

Trace MCP

by Mnehmos
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

compare

Detect schema mismatches between producer and consumer codebases across languages and protocols.

Instructions

Full contract validation: extract producer schemas, trace consumer usage, compare for mismatches. Works across languages (TS↔Python, Go↔TS, etc.) and protocols (REST, GraphQL, gRPC, MCP).

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": {
      "producerDir": "<producerDir>",
      "consumerDir": "<consumerDir>"
    },
    "name": "compare"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
producerDirYesPath to API/server source directory
consumerDirYesPath to client source directory
formatNoOutput format
strictNoStrict mode for comparison
directionNoData flow direction (default: producer_to_consumer)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / consumerDir / description
      Previous value: -"Path to consumer/client source directory"New value: +"Path to client source directory"
    • changedInput schema / properties / producerDir / description
      Previous value: -"Path to MCP server source directory"New value: +"Path to API/server source directory"
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the what (extract, trace, compare) but not side effects, permissions, or output behavior. Critical details like whether it modifies files or requires network access are 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 highly concise: two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose. The first sentence states the core function, the second broadens scope. No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema and 5 parameters, the description should provide more context about the result format or behavior. It omits any hint of what the comparison outputs (e.g., mismatches report), leaving a significant gap for a complex tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all 5 parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 provides a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('contract'), and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating it performs three actions (extract, trace, compare) in one tool. It covers multiple languages and protocols, making its scope clear.

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?

The description does not explain when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools like 'extract_schemas' or 'trace_usage'. There is no guidance on prerequisites, when to avoid, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to guess.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools