Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
carmaker-mcp

carmaker-mcp

by dimitr-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Compare two project data files

cm_diff
Read-only

Keys only in a, only in b, and those whose values differ ([a, b]), e.g. two vehicles or a test run and its clone.

Instructions

Keys only in a, only in b, and those whose values differ ([a, b]), e.g. two vehicles or a test run and its clone.

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": {
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "a": "<a>",
      "b": "<b>"
    },
    "name": "cm_diff"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aYesFirst file, relative to the kind's folder
bYesSecond file
kindYesKind of project data; selects the folder below <project>/Data
prefixNoOnly keys starting with this

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description clarifies the functional behavior of the tool by detailing the exact structure of the comparison results (keys unique to a, b, or differing values).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, packing a complex definition of differential comparison into a single, highly informative sentence.

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?

The definition is conceptually complete, giving the agent a clear idea of the tool's purpose and output format before looking at the schema. Its only gap is providing usage constraints or prerequisites.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Since the schema description coverage is 100%, the description primarily adds high-level conceptual context rather than specific semantic meaning to the parameters. Baseline score applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies exactly what results are provided: keys only in A, only in B, and those with differing values ([a, b]). It is highly specific and provides domain examples (vehicles, test run clone).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cm_clone or cm_create). Usage is implied by the nature of the comparison.

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