can-engineering-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

diff_databases

Compare two CAN or CAN FD databases to produce a structured engineering changelog of added/removed messages and signals, bit shifts, scaling or offset changes, and cycle-time changes.

Instructions

Structured engineering changelog between two databases of any supported format: added/removed messages and signals, bit shifts, scaling/offset changes, and cycle-time changes.

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": {
      "db_path_a": "<db_path_a>",
      "db_path_b": "<db_path_b>"
    },
    "name": "diff_databases"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`db_path_a`	Yes
`db_path_b`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the shape of the result as a 'structured engineering changelog' with enumerated change types, which implies a read-only comparison. It does not state that it is non-mutating, what happens if formats are incompatible, or how missing messages are handled, so significant behavioral gaps remain.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence: the core action and result type come first, followed by the enumeration of change categories. Nothing is padded, though 'of any supported format' is slightly vague without listing or linking supported formats.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain both result shape and safety profile; it partially does by naming the changelog's contents, but omits directionality, error behavior on incompatible inputs, and any confirmation that the operation is read-only.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and both parameters are bare strings, so the description must compensate. 'Between two databases of any supported format' implies the paths are the two files being compared and that formats may differ, but it never establishes directionality (which side is the baseline for 'added' vs 'removed'), path format, or relative-vs-absolute expectations.

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 and resource (diff two databases) and enumerates the categories of change reported (added/removed messages and signals, bit shifts, scaling/offset, cycle times), which distinguishes it from inspect_database_summary or convert_database_format. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating the counterfactual case explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for comparing two database files. There is no explicit when-to-use versus inspect_database_summary or validate_database_integrity, and no stated prerequisites such as the two files needing to be valid or comparable.

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