Compare two Minecraft modpack directories to identify added, removed, and changed mods, then generate a Markdown or text changelog enriched with Modrinth version history.
生成包含 Modrinth 版本历史信息的完整 Changelog（网络请求较多，较慢）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | 输出格式，默认 markdown | |
| new_version | No | 新版本标签 | |
| old_version | No | 旧版本标签 | |
| 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, and it does add one genuine trait: network-heavy and slow, plus an implicit dependency on the Modrinth API. It does not say whether the result is returned or written to disk (a save_changelog sibling exists), whether it is read-only, or how it handles API failures/rate limits.
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 well-formed sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the performance caveat in a trailing parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse given the unaddressed sibling relationship.
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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the core purpose and the notable cost are covered. The remaining gaps are the return/behavior details and the explicit distinction from generate_changelog, which for a tool that may trigger many external requests is a meaningful omission.
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 100%, so all five parameters including the format enum and the two required pack directories are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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 and resource (generate a complete Changelog) and scopes it to including Modrinth version-history data. The word '完整' (complete) implicitly contrasts with the sibling generate_changelog, but that sibling is never named, so an agent must 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?
The parenthetical note that it makes many network requests and is slow implies a tradeoff, suggesting this is the heavier option versus a lighter sibling. However, it never states when to prefer it over generate_changelog or compare_modpacks, leaving the choice to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.