Previews

get_preview_diff

Compare two versions of a web preview and view file-by-file text diffs to identify changes.

Instructions

View file-by-file text diff between two versions of a preview.

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "get_preview_diff"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	Yes	Subdomain slug of the project
`to_version`	No	Ending version
`from_version`	No	Starting version

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return granularity ('file-by-file text diff'), which signals a read-only, potentially large text response, but it omits what happens when from_version or to_version are omitted, whether the diff is truncated for large previews, and any auth or permission requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource ('file-by-file text diff') and the operand ('two versions of a preview') are stated immediately with nothing redundant.

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?

For a simple three-parameter read tool with an optional output schema absent, the description is largely sufficient, and its mention of the file-by-file text diff partly compensates for the missing output schema. Minor gaps remain around default version behavior and diff size limits.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents slug, from_version, and to_version. The description reinforces the from/to version pairing ('between two versions') and the text/file-by-file result granularity, but adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

The description gives a specific verb ('View') and a precise resource ('file-by-file text diff between two versions of a preview'), so an agent can immediately tell this is a read-only comparison tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_previews or update_preview, but the diff scope makes the distinction clear in practice.

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: the phrase 'between two versions' suggests calling it when comparing versions, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The agent must infer the trigger condition from the phrase alone.

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

Deploy Server