Compare two OpenAPI documents to find selected breaking changes before release. Use it to catch API contract issues; it does not perform exhaustive schema compatibility checks.
Find selected breaking changes between two OpenAPI documents; not exhaustive schema compatibility.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | Yes | ||
| before | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does 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 adds one useful caveat — results are a selected subset, not a complete compatibility check — but says nothing about output shape, ordering, determinism, or what 'breaking' means, leaving most behavioral traits undisclosed.
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, front-loaded sentence that carries the verb, resource, and scope limit with no wasted words.
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 tool taking two nested-object specs with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits the expected input shape and what the result actually contains. An agent can guess intent but cannot confidently construct or interpret a call from this text alone.
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 0% and the two parameters are untyped nested objects, so the description must compensate. It only implies that the two documents correspond to the before/after params and never explains their expected form (parsed object vs. spec version), so the gap is largely unfilled.
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: it finds breaking changes between two OpenAPI documents, and immediately scopes what kind ('selected', 'not exhaustive'). It is distinguishable from 'audit_openapi' by its comparative framing, though it never names the sibling.
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 phrase 'not exhaustive schema compatibility' tells the agent when not to rely on this tool, which is a partial usage boundary. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus audit_openapi, and no prerequisites (e.g., both documents must be supplied) are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.