Compare a planned HCL topology against the live lab and report device and configuration differences, including missing or extra devices and out-of-sync state.
Compare planned addresses with freshly bound guest observations.
Missing/extra live devices and a positive in_sync remain unknown until an authoritative native topology inventory is available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | Yes | ||
| topology | Yes | ||
| project_path | Yes | ||
| timeout_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint:false, so the bar is lower and the warning that some results "remain unknown until an authoritative native topology inventory is available" is a genuine addition about output trustworthiness. However, that caveat is phrased in vocabulary (guest observations, live devices, in_sync) that maps to nothing in the schema, so its behavioural value is hard to apply.
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 with no filler, and the compare action leads. But the second sentence is opaque jargon that consumes attention without conveying actionable information, so brevity here is not the same as efficiency.
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 with a 60+-definition nested schema, no output schema, and no documented parameters, the description should explain what the diff returns (in_sync? missing/extra? per-device?) and how `topology` relates to `plan`. It covers none of that and uses unrelated vocabulary, leaving the agent unable to call this confidently.
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% across four parameters, including a deeply nested TopologyPlan and an opaque `topology` string. The description names none of them and gives no hint about what `topology` accepts (a path? a YAML/JSON blob? a backend handle?) or how `plan` is compared against it.
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?
"Compare" is a verb, but the objects are "planned addresses" and "freshly bound guest observations" – neither of which matches the actual inputs (project_path, topology, plan). The description never says it diffs a plan against a project's HCL state, so an agent cannot tell this apart from hcl_validate_plan, hcl_explain_plan, or hcl_parity_report.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus hcl_validate_plan or hcl_parity_report, and no prerequisites for project_path or the topology string. The second sentence only fences off a limitation; it does not route the agent anywhere.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.