Compare live network devices with a saved snapshot to find new or changed MAC addresses; the first run saves a baseline for future comparisons.
Diff live devices vs latest snapshot ⇒ Finding[] (new MAC, MAC change). First run saves baseline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the first-run baseline side effect and the return shape, but it does not clarify whether later runs update the snapshot, whether the tool is read-only after baseline creation, or what permissions/rate behavior apply.
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 extremely compact and front-loads the core diff operation, with the first-run behavior following immediately. The arrow notation and terse phrasing are slightly cryptic, but no sentence is wasted.
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?
For a zero-parameter, stateful diff tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and return categories. However, it leaves ambiguity around snapshot lifecycle and exact Finding[] structure, which would matter for repeated or automated use.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline score for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not introduce confusion.
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 states a specific operation: diff live devices against the latest snapshot, and names the return type and the two finding categories. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like lan.devices (list devices) and lan.snapshot (capture snapshot).
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 gives clear context for when to use it: comparing live devices to the latest snapshot, with a note that the first run saves a baseline. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use lan.snapshot instead, which keeps it below a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.