Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Repro Capsule MCP

Repro Capsule MCP

by efficjump
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

compare_runs

Read-only

Identify differences between two runs by comparing exit status, expectation match, and redacted output hashes.

Instructions

Compare exit status, expectation match, and redacted output hashes for two runs.

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": {
      "case_id": "<case_id>",
      "baseline_run_id": "<baseline_run_id>",
      "candidate_run_id": "<candidate_run_id>"
    },
    "name": "compare_runs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
case_idYesIdentifier returned by start_case.
baseline_run_idYesRecorded execution identifier.
candidate_run_idYesRecorded execution identifier.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description supports. The description adds detail about what is compared, enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word adds meaning.

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 description covers the core functionality without redundancy. Given the presence of an output schema and the tool's simple nature, it is adequately complete, though it could mention that runs must exist beforehand.

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?

All three parameters are described in the schema with coverage 100%. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Compare' and resource 'runs', listing exact aspects (exit status, expectation match, redacted output hashes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which handle case creation, analysis, plan execution, etc.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_case. The description only states what it does, not when it should be preferred or prerequisites.

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