compare_current_to_versionCompare the current app files to a Saved Version and return compact per-file diffs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | The app ID | |
| snapshot_id | Yes | Saved Version snapshot ID | |
| max_diff_chars | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the output is 'compact per-file diffs', which tells the agent the format is summarized rather than full file contents. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that states the action and output format, with no extraneous information. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
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 provides the core purpose and output format, and with annotations covering safety, it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity. However, it does not mention any prerequisites like needing a valid snapshot_id obtained from list_saved_versions, which could improve completeness.
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 schema describes app_id and snapshot_id but leaves max_diff_chars undocumented. The description does not add any parameter details beyond the schema, so it doesn't compensate for the missing explanation of max_diff_chars. With 67% coverage, the description adds minimal value for parameter understanding.
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 clearly states the action: comparing current app files to a saved version (identified by snapshot_id) and returning compact per-file diffs. This distinguishes it from siblings like compare_saved_versions (which compares two saved versions) and get_app_files (which reads files without diffing).
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 description indicates the tool compares the current state to a specific Saved Version, implying it is used to inspect changes since a checkpoint. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, such as compare_saved_versions for comparing two historical versions. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding between the two.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but there are some overlapping pairs like read_app_file/read_app_files and create_entity_records vs seed_entity, which could cause misselection. Singular/plural variants and compatibility tools introduce minor ambiguity, but the majority are well-separated.
Tool names predominantly follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_app, get_entities, delete_secret). There are some variations like 'agency_create_client' and 'seed_entity' that deviate slightly, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.
With 82 tools, the server is far above the typical range and feels overwhelming. Even for a full platform API, the count is extreme and likely increases selection complexity. A more curated set would improve navigability without sacrificing capability.
The tool surface is exceptionally comprehensive, covering app lifecycle, file operations, entity CRUD, versioning, A/B testing, secrets, integrations, domains, agents, scheduling, policies, and member management. No obvious missing operations for the platform's scope; it even includes validation and workflow guidance tools.