Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

diff_design_versions

Read-only

Compare two design versions using design_id:N IDs and return a unified diff showing the changes between them.

Instructions

Compute a unified diff between two design versions.

        Version IDs are interpreted as ``<design_id>:<version_number>``
        (e.g. ``my-coaster:2``).  If no colon is present the string is
        treated as a plain version number and the tool will attempt to
        locate a design that contains that version.

        Args:
            version_id_a: The "from" version in ``design_id:N`` format.
            version_id_b: The "to" version in ``design_id:N`` format.

        Returns:
            A unified diff string showing changes from version A to B.

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": {
      "version_id_a": "<version_id_a>",
      "version_id_b": "<version_id_b>"
    },
    "name": "diff_design_versions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
version_id_aYesThe "from" version in ``design_id:N`` format.
version_id_bYesThe "to" version in ``design_id:N`` format.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / version_id_a / description
      Added value: +"The \"from\" version in ``design_id:N`` format."
    • addedInput schema / properties / version_id_b / description
      Added value: +"The \"to\" version in ``design_id:N`` format."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the result is a unified diff string and explains the version ID fallback behavior, but it does not mention error handling, diff scope, or limits for large versions.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the input/output structure is easy to scan. The Args and Returns sections repeat some schema text, but the overall formatting remains efficient for a two-parameter tool.

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?

For a simple read-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core input format and return type adequately. The main remaining gap is that it does not clarify how this differs from other version-comparison sibling tools.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already names both parameters. The description earns extra credit by explaining the `<design_id>:<version_number>` format and the no-colon fallback behavior, which is meaningfully beyond the schema text.

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 states a specific verb and resource: compute a unified diff between two design versions. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as compare_design_versions, compare_mesh_versions, or visual_diff_meshes.

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 implied by the version-to-version comparison framing, and the description explains version ID parsing. However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over compare_design_versions or visual_diff_meshes, nor does it provide exclusions or preconditions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools