Compare original and modified JAR files to reveal byte-level differences, helping identify patched classes during game modding.
Show differences between original and modified file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| class_path | Yes | File path within JAR | |
| session_id | Yes | Session ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no indication of whether the operation is read-only, what the output looks like, what 'modified' means, or what happens if there are no changes. One sentence is far too thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being fully earned.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the diff returns and how a session establishes the 'original' baseline. Neither is addressed, leaving the agent unable to predict the result of calling it.
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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents class_path and session_id. The description adds no additional meaning about how either parameter selects or scopes the diff, matching the baseline of 3.
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?
Specific verb ('Show differences') plus resource ('original and modified file'), so the agent knows this is a diff operation. It does not say which 'original' or 'modified' refer to (session edits vs. on-disk) and does not distinguish itself from siblings like verify_patches or compare_binaries_detailed.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the many alternative comparison tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer that a session must be open and edited before this is useful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.