Compare entity metadata against a snapshot to report additions, deletions, and changes, excluding individual mesh vertices.
Compare entity metadata with a snapshot; reports additions, deletions and changes, not individual mesh vertices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model_id | No | ||
| active_path | No | ||
| snapshot_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Input schema / properties / active_pathAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 32,
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / properties / model_idAdded value: +{
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: it operates at the entity-metadata level and deliberately excludes per-vertex detail, telling the agent what granularity of change it will and will not report.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the primary action leads and the scope caveat trails. Slightly terse for the amount of undocumented behavior, but no wasted words.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully sketches what is reported, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, given 0% parameter documentation and no return structure, the definition is only minimally complete for an agent trying to call it with the right arguments.
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% and there are three parameters, yet the description only hints at snapshot usage. It gives no meaning for model_id (which model is diffed?) or active_path, so it fails to compensate for the fully undocumented schema.
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?
States a specific verb ('compare') and resources ('entity metadata' vs a 'snapshot') plus the exact output scope ('additions, deletions and changes'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like model_snapshot or model_undo, though it does not name them outright.
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?
The description never says when to use this tool versus alternatives such as model_undo/model_redo, nor does it state that a snapshot must already exist (e.g. via model_snapshot). The dependency on snapshot_id is only inferable from the schema, not from the text.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.