compare_timestampsCompare two hybrid timestamps to determine their order, resolving event sequencing conflicts using logical time and wall-clock ranges.
Compare two hybrid timestamps to determine ordering.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | ||
| b | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / a / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / b / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not explain how ordering is resolved (logical time vs. wall clock tie-breaking) or what the comparison returns, and with no output schema the return value is entirely undisclosed.
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 zero filler, which is the right shape. It is efficient, though pointedly thin for a tool with nested object parameters.
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?
For a tool with nested objects, 0% parameter coverage, and no output schema, the description omits the two things an agent most needs: the tie-breaking/comparison rules and the shape of the ordering result. Annotations cover safety, but the functional contract is incomplete.
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 both parameters are nested objects with four undocumented fields each (logicalTime, wallClockEarliest, wallClockLatest, gatewayId). The description only implies that a and b are hybrid timestamps and adds no meaning about field roles or comparison semantics, so it fails to compensate for the empty 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), a specific resource (hybrid timestamps), and the goal (determine ordering), which is enough to distinguish it from the write-side sibling create_hybrid_timestamp. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting with any sibling, so it is clear but not differentiated.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create_hybrid_timestamp or is_evidence_fresh. An agent must infer the calling context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.