Compare two NC files to identify sequence differences and get a semantic summary of changes.
Compare two NC files with sequence diffing and semantic summary
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | Yes | ||
| before | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| live | No | ||
| tool | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| receipt | No | ||
| documentRevision | No | ||
| operationFingerprint | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds that it performs sequence diffing and produces a semantic summary, which gives some insight into behavior beyond the annotations, but it doesn't discuss limitations, input size constraints, or output characteristics.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and method.
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?
The description is minimal for a tool with 2 parameters and an output schema. It lacks usage guidance, parameter format details, and explanation of the output structure. While the output schema exists, the description does not help the agent understand what the semantic summary contains or how to interpret the diff. It is too sparse for a tool that compares potentially large NC files.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description states 'Compare two NC files', which clarifies that the 'before' and 'after' parameters are NC file contents. This adds meaning to otherwise bare string parameters, though it doesn't specify format, encoding, or how the files should be provided (e.g., paths vs. content).
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 verb 'Compare' and the resource 'two NC files', and specifies the method as 'sequence diffing and semantic summary'. This distinguishes it from sibling compare tools like compare_toolpaths or compare_tool_databases by the explicit 'NC files' focus, though it could be more explicit about the differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as compare_toolpaths or compare_tool_databases. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool is preferred over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.