elementor-mcp-agent

compare_screenshots

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare two screenshots using SHA-256 hash equality and size delta to detect visual changes after edits.

Instructions

Compare two screenshot files via SHA-256 hash equality and size delta. Quick way to spot whether a page changed visually after an edit. For pixel diffs, use a dedicated tool externally.

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": {
      "before_path": "<before_path>",
      "after_path": "<after_path>"
    },
    "name": "compare_screenshots"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`before_path`	Yes
`after_path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`identical`	Yes
`before_bytes`	Yes
`after_bytes`	Yes
`delta_bytes`	Yes
`before_sha256`	Yes
`after_sha256`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it uses SHA-256 and size delta, confirming non-destructive, deterministic operation with no side effects.

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 concise sentences front-load the core functionality and alternatives. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, method, and alternatives. Minor gap: could mention if the result is a boolean or detailed diff, but output schema likely covers this.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on the parameters beyond their names. While names are self-explanatory, the description should clarify expected format (e.g., absolute vs relative path) or file types.

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 clearly states the tool compares two screenshot files via SHA-256 hash and size delta, distinguishing it from pixel-diff tools. The verb 'compare' and resource 'screenshot files' are specific, and it is unique among siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit usage context: 'Quick way to spot whether a page changed visually after an edit.' Also guides to alternatives: 'For pixel diffs, use a dedicated tool externally.'

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