compare_enclosuresCompare 2–10 electronic enclosures side by side and identify which specifications differ to support model selection.
Side-by-side comparison of 2–10 enclosures; lists which fields differ.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| codes | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notFound | Yes | Codes that were unknown or ambiguous, with hints | |
| enclosures | Yes | ||
| differences | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral note—it reports which fields differ rather than full records—but says nothing about behavior with duplicate/unknown codes or ordering. Given the annotation coverage, that is a modest but real contribution.
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 a clear semicolon-delimited second clause; no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than maximal efficiency.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool is structurally simple with one required array parameter. However, an agent still lacks the code format, the field set being compared, and error behavior for invalid codes, which are gaps for reliable invocation.
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?
With a single parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and does explain what the parameter holds (enclosure identifiers, 2–10 of them) and that they are compared against each other. It stops short of giving the expected code format or stating that comparison is order-independent.
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 and resource ("Side-by-side comparison of 2–10 enclosures") and scopes it to multiple items, which implicitly separates it from get_enclosure and search_enclosures. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
Usage is only implied: the word "comparison" suggests you call it when you need to diff several enclosures at once, and the 2–10 range hints it is not for single-record lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling tools as alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.