wow-api-mcp

Compare API across flavors

diff_api

Compare an API's existence and signature across all World of Warcraft client flavors to identify flavor-specific differences.

Instructions

Compare an API's existence and signature across all four flavors (live, classic, classic_era, classic_anniversary). Useful to check whether an API exists in a given flavor and whether its signature differs.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "diff_api"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	API name, qualified or bare

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 15, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided. The description implies a read-only comparison (no mutation mentioned), but does not explicitly confirm safety, output format, or error behavior. It lists the four flavors, adding some transparency beyond default behavior.

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: first defines the action, second clarifies usefulness. Front-loaded and efficient with no wasted words.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and key detail (four flavors). It does not describe output format, but is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description does not add additional meaning to the 'name' parameter beyond what the schema provides (qualified or bare).

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 existence and signature across four specific flavors, using a specific verb ('compare') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_api (single API) and search_api.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description says it is useful for checking existence and signature differences across flavors, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but context with siblings implies differentiation.

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

Deploy Server