mib2c-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Unsaved changes

get_changes

Read-only

Lists all pending edits a save would apply, including replaced images and moved points, touch areas, parking or energy flow positions with old and new locations.

Instructions

Everything that save would write: each replaced image (with the file it came from) and every moved point, touch area, parking or energy flow position, with its saved and new place.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds real context on top: the result is exactly the pending write-set that 'save' would apply, broken into replaced images, moved points, touch areas, parking and energy positions. It does not cover the empty/no-changes case or ordering, which keeps it below a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited enumeration of what is returned; every clause carries information. The parenthetical '(with the file it came from)' and 'with its saved and new place' are slightly dense but earn their place by describing the diff payload.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so by enumerating the change categories and their before/after pairing. Minor gaps remain around result shape and the empty case, but nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter talk.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description defines the resource precisely as the set of pending edits ('everything that save would write'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling 'save' (which performs the write) and from 'get_state'. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than read it.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can reason that this is a pre-save diff preview, but the description never says when to call it (before saving, before undo) or when to prefer 'get_state' or 'status' instead. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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