Agent Cam MCP Tool

compare_to_baseline

Compare a camera's current view to a saved baseline to get SSIM similarity, changed pixel percentage, and a visual difference heatmap for verification.

Instructions

Compare the current physical camera state against a saved baseline. Returns SSIM structural similarity score, percent of changed pixels, and a visual difference heatmap image.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "compare_to_baseline"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Name of baseline to compare against
`camera`	No	Camera ID
`region`	No	Optional named region

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 4, 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 burden. It does disclose the return payload (SSIM score, changed-pixel percentage, difference heatmap), which is genuinely useful, but it omits whether a fresh capture occurs, permission requirements, and whether the operation is read-only.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero filler; the comparison operation is front-loaded and the return values follow immediately.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating what is returned. It remains slightly incomplete about prerequisites (baseline existence) and whether it triggers its own capture, but is largely sufficient for invocation.

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 name, camera, and region. The description adds no format, defaulting, or scope detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('current physical camera state against a saved baseline'), which clearly distinguishes it from the save_baseline sibling. It even previews the outputs, though it doesn't name the counterpart tool explicitly.

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 mention of a 'saved baseline' suggests this follows save_baseline, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. a baseline must already exist), and no alternatives named.

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