Compare a saved preset with the current mixer state or another preset to reveal what changed since the last snapshot.
Show what differs between a saved preset and the current board (or another preset given as other). Answers 'what changed since ...'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| other | No | ||
| max_lines | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is clear. The description adds context that the tool compares a saved preset with the current board or another preset, but does not disclose output format or any additional behavioral traits beyond that.
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?
Two short sentences deliver the core purpose and intended question, with no wasted words. The main comparison behavior is front-loaded and the example phrasing adds user context without redundancy.
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?
The description is adequate for basic invocation: it names the required comparison inputs and the optional other preset. However, with no output schema, it does not describe what the diff output looks like, and it leaves 'max_lines' unexplained, which is a notable gap for a formatting-related parameter.
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?
The description clarifies the 'other' parameter by name ('another preset given as other'), but does not explain 'name' or 'max_lines'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, and it only partially does.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('show what differs') and a clear resource: a saved preset versus the current board or another preset. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like load_preset, save_preset, and list_presets by focusing on comparison rather than loading or saving.
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 'Answers what changed since ...' gives clear context for when this tool is useful. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the comparison-focused framing makes the intended use case evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.