diff_jobsCompare ACCEPTED findings between two scan jobs to identify new, fixed, and persisting issues, enabling clear change tracking across security assessments.
Compare ACCEPTED findings between two jobs (new / fixed / persisting).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id_a | Yes | ||
| job_id_b | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two meaningful behavioral traits beyond the schema: only ACCEPTED findings are considered, and results are categorized as new/fixed/persisting. It says nothing about read-only nature, behavior with unknown or mismatched job IDs, or the ordering of the returned buckets.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the result categories parenthesized for quick scanning. No filler or 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the result-category hint is a useful addition. However, for a mutation-free but parameter-critical diff tool with zero annotation coverage, the unresolved direction of the comparison (a vs b) leaves a real gap an agent must guess at.
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 0% and neither job_id_a nor job_id_b has a description. The phrase 'between two jobs' implies both parameters are job identifiers but never establishes which is the baseline and which is the comparison — the single most important semantic for a diff tool. The description therefore fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (Compare) and a precisely scoped resource (ACCEPTED findings between two jobs), plus the three result buckets new/fixed/persisting. That scope wording separates it from get_job and get_finding, which fetch single objects, though it never names those siblings directly.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'between two jobs' signals a two-job comparison, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus get_job, get_finding, or explain_finding, and no prerequisite guidance (e.g., that both jobs must exist or be completed).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.