Calculate union, intersection, difference, symmetric difference, subset, and superset relationships between two arrays to compare sets and identify shared or unique values.
Perform set operations: union, intersection, difference, symmetric difference, subset/superset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| set_a | Yes | First set (array of values). | |
| set_b | Yes | Second set (array of values). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, how duplicate or unordered values are handled, what errors are possible, or what the return structure looks like.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no obvious filler. It is concise, but the brevity contributes to missing operational details such as how the operation is chosen.
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?
For a two-parameter calculation tool with no output schema, the description should clarify how union, intersection, difference, etc. are invoked and what is returned. It instead leaves a critical gap: the schema has no operation parameter, and the description does not explain how to select among the listed operations.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents set_a as the first set and set_b as the second set. The description adds a list of possible operations but does not map them to any parameter or explain how the operation is selected, so it adds limited parameter-level meaning.
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 and resource: 'Perform set operations,' then enumerates union, intersection, difference, symmetric difference, and subset/superset. However, it does not distinguish this tool from possible siblings, and the lack of an operation selector makes the exact purpose ambiguous.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor about when one operation should be selected over another. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the list of set operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.