cognigy-ai-mcp-management-server

diff_snapshots

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare two snapshots to identify added, removed, or modified resources. Review changes before deployment to understand the impact of a snapshot update.

Instructions

Compares two Cognigy.AI snapshots and shows what changed (added, removed, modified resources). Useful for reviewing changes before deployment or understanding what a snapshot update will affect.

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": {
      "snapshotIdA": "<snapshotIdA>",
      "snapshotIdB": "<snapshotIdB>"
    },
    "name": "diff_snapshots"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`snapshotIdA`	Yes	The 'before' snapshot ID (base for comparison)
`snapshotIdB`	Yes	The 'after' snapshot ID (what changed)
`resourceTypes`	No	Types of resources to compare. Supported: flow, nluconnector, locale, largeLanguageModel (default: all)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.4Jul 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as true or false. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond the types of changes (added, removed, modified). With strong annotations, the description's incremental value is limited.

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 states what the tool does, second gives use cases. No wasted words or redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having no output schema, the description does not describe the structure or format of the diff output, which is important for a comparison tool. The use cases are covered, but the return information is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and parameters are well-described in the input schema (e.g., 'before' and 'after' snapshot IDs, optional resource types with enums). The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (compares) and the resource (two snapshots), and specifies what it shows (added, removed, modified resources). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_snapshot and restore_snapshot.

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 provides clear use cases ('reviewing changes before deployment' and 'understanding what a snapshot update will affect'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternative tools.

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

Deploy Server