compare_auditsCompare two GEOMCP 0.1.0 audit reports to track status changes and verify fixes. Unknown or missing checks are coverage changes, not improvements.
Compare two GEOMCP 0.1.0 check reports. Unknowns and absent checks are coverage changes, never improvements. Pass prior audit objects directly; extra fields are ignored.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | Yes | ||
| before | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real semantic value: 'Unknowns and absent checks are coverage changes, never improvements' encodes a non-obvious comparison rule the agent cannot derive from annotations or schema. It also notes that extra input fields are ignored, which clarifies input tolerance.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the two rules that matter most. No filler, no restatement of the title or tool name.
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 should describe what the comparison returns (e.g., per-check deltas, directionality) but does not. It partially compensates by stating how unknowns and absent checks are classified, yet an agent still cannot predict the response shape.
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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It correctly identifies that the two required parameters are full prior audit objects supplied 'directly' (not just checks arrays) and that extra fields are tolerated, which is useful. However, it does not explain the before/after ordering semantics or what happens on a version mismatch beyond what the schema's const already enforces.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Compare two GEOMCP 0.1.0 check reports.' The domain (GEO check reports) and the act (diffing) are unambiguous and clearly distinct from the audit/inspect siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly to reinforce the distinction.
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?
'Pass prior audit objects directly; extra fields are ignored' tells the agent what to supply, which implies the tool is used on outputs of the audit_* tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement versus the sibling inspection tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.