Compare a project's Docker configuration against its template to identify missing, outdated, or extra files.
Compare a project's Docker configuration against its template to find missing, outdated, or extra files
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute path to the project directory | |
| template | No | Template to compare against (auto-detected from .env if not provided) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the three result categories (missing, outdated, extra), implying a read-only drift analysis, but never states side effects, permissions, or return shape explicitly.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource and ends with the concrete result categories. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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 output schema and no annotations, the description must carry more weight, and it does mention the result categories, which is helpful. However, it omits how the comparison is scoped or what the output looks like, leaving gaps for an agent predicting behavior.
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%, so both 'path' and 'template' are already documented, including the auto-detection fallback for template. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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), two concrete resources (project's Docker configuration and its template), and the outcome (missing, outdated, extra files). It is clearly distinct from the sibling retrieval tools, though it does not name any of them explicitly to reinforce the distinction.
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?
The description explains what the comparison yields but gives no guidance on when to prefer it over siblings like itkdev_detect_project or itkdev_get_template_files, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage can only be inferred from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.