war-selection-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

diff_mod

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare two cached versions of a War Selection mod as a unified diff, defaulting to previous vs latest, or compare a published version against the developer-mode draft.

Instructions

Unified diff between two cached versions of a mod (default: previous vs latest). draft=true compares published version v1 (default latest) with the developer-mode draft in modsStorage/draft.

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": {
      "mod_id": "<mod_id>"
    },
    "name": "diff_mod"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`v1`	No
`v2`	No
`kind`	No	lua
`draft`	No
`mod_id`	Yes
`context`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description's job is to add semantics. It does, disclosing the default comparison pair, the draft-vs-published behavior, and the modsStorage/draft location, which is useful beyond the 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?

Two tight sentences with the primary default behavior front-loaded and the draft variant following. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 6-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description covers the core comparison semantics but omits any meaning for 'kind' and 'context', leaving an agent guessing on two parameters.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains v1, v2 defaults and the draft flag, but leaves 'kind' (default lua) and 'context' completely unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb+resource: computes a unified diff between two cached versions of a mod, with default scope (previous vs latest) named. It implicitly differentiates from the sibling diff_game_versions by scoping to mods, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear context for the default mode (previous vs latest) and the alternate mode (draft=true compares published v1 against the developer-mode draft), including where the draft lives. It does not state when not to use it or point to diff_game_versions for non-mod diffs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.