Compare two Minecraft modpack directories to identify added, removed, and changed mods, then generate a Markdown changelog with optional version labels.
根据整合包差异生成 Markdown 格式的 Changelog
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_version | No | 新版本标签（如 v1.1.0） | |
| old_version | No | 旧版本标签（如 v1.0.0） | |
| new_pack_dir | Yes | 新版本整合包根目录路径 | |
| old_pack_dir | Yes | 旧版本整合包根目录路径 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only says the output is Markdown. It doesn't disclose whether a file is written to disk or the text is returned (critical given a save_changelog sibling), whether it is read-only, or what the tool does with the pack directories.
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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and output format with no filler. It is efficient, though brevity here overlaps with under-specification of behavior.
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?
Schema fully documents the four parameters and the description names the output format, which covers the basics for a generation tool with no output schema. What's missing is the crucial behavioral context: whether output is returned or persisted, and how the version labels are used.
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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter (old_pack_dir, new_pack_dir, old_version, new_version) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond 'modpack differences', so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (generate), resource (Changelog), output format (Markdown), and input basis (modpack differences), so the agent knows exactly what the call produces. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like generate_full_changelog or compare_modpacks, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as generate_full_changelog, compare_modpacks, or save_changelog. The agent can only infer that it should be called when two pack directories differ, and must guess how this differs from a 'full' changelog.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.