Compares two Minecraft resource packs to report added, removed, and changed asset files, helping identify differences between pack versions or directories.
Compare two resource packs and report added, removed, and changed asset files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| newPackPath | Yes | Path to the new resource pack directory or .zip | |
| oldPackPath | Yes | Path to the old resource pack directory or .zip |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the shape of the result (added/removed/changed asset files), which is useful, but says nothing about whether it reads from disk, whether the comparison is recursive over nested directories, how large packs are handled, or whether it fails on invalid paths.
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 no filler; the verb, operands, and result are all in one clause. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 two-parameter read-style tool with full schema coverage, the description covers what is produced but leaves open scope questions (recursive asset traversal, binary vs. text diffing, error behavior on unreadable zips) and offers no guidance against the confusingly similar sibling tool.
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%, and both parameters are documented there as 'Path to the old/new resource pack directory or .zip'. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, 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 (compare) and resource (two resource packs) and names the output categories (added, removed, changed asset files). It is clearly distinct from read/validate/list siblings, but it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling `compare_rpacks_diff`, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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?
No indication of when to use this versus the very similarly named `compare_rpacks_diff`, nor any preconditions (both packs must already exist locally as directories or .zip files). The agent is left to infer tool selection entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.