Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
oh-my-mcp

oh-my-mcp

by quyansiyuanwang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

diff_text

Compare two text strings and display their differences in unified, context, or ndiff format.

Instructions

Compare two text strings and show differences.

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": {
      "text1": "<text1>",
      "text2": "<text2>"
    },
    "name": "diff_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
text1YesFirst text string
text2YesSecond text string
formatNoOutput format - "unified", "context", or "ndiff" (default: "unified")unified

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as output format specifics, case sensitivity, encoding handling, or line-level behavior. The format parameter is in the schema, but the description does not clarify its effect.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail or repetition. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, 3 parameters, and the existence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It could benefit from mentioning the output format options, but the schema and output schema likely suffice for agent use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters fully. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond the schema, achieving the baseline score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'compare' and the resource 'two text strings', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like diff_files (compares files) and calculate_text_similarity (provides similarity scores).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., diff_files for file comparison) or alternatives. Usage context is only implied.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools