Compare two texts and return structured line additions, removals, and a unified diff.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | Yes | ||
| before | Yes | ||
| context_lines | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Structured Document diff result | |
| meta | Yes | ||
| service | Yes | ||
| version | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes | Unique request identifier |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / meta / properties / next_actions / items / properties / checkout_pathAdded value: +{
+ "pattern": "^/try/",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / meta / properties / next_actions / items / properties / executes_automaticallyAdded value: +{
+ "const": false,
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / properties / meta / properties / next_actions / items / properties / handoff_pathAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Free full contract and spend-capped command handoff; reading it does not execute or purchase the follow-up.",
+ "pattern": "^/catalog/",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / meta / properties / next_actions / items / properties / handoff_payment_requiredAdded value: +{
+ "const": false,
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / properties / meta / properties / next_actions / items / properties / maximum_atomic_usdcAdded value: +{
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]*$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / meta / properties / next_actions / items / properties / sample_pathAdded value: +{
+ "pattern": "^/samples/",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / meta / properties / next_actions / items / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "service",
- "title",
- "reason",
- "method",
- "path",
- "price",
- "input_template",
- "use_output",
- "authorization_required"
-]New value: +[
+ "service",
+ "title",
+ "reason",
+ "method",
+ "path",
+ "price",
+ "input_template",
+ "use_output",
+ "handoff_path",
+ "checkout_path",
+ "sample_path",
+ "maximum_atomic_usdc",
+ "handoff_payment_required",
+ "executes_automatically",
+ "authorization_required"
+]Output schema / properties / meta / properties / next_actionsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional separately priced follow-up calls. Each action requires a new payment challenge and explicit buyer authorization.",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "authorization_required": {
+ "const": true,
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "input_template": {
+ "description": "Client-side template only: $request refers to the original input, $result to this response, and $json(...) serializes its argument. The server does not execute the follow-up.",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "method": {
+ "const": "POST",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "path": {
+ "pattern": "^/v1/",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "price": {
+ "pattern": "^\\$[0-9]+",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "reason": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "service": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "use_output": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "service",
+ "title",
+ "reason",
+ "method",
+ "path",
+ "price",
+ "input_template",
+ "use_output",
+ "authorization_required"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / properties / meta / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "duration_ms",
- "cached",
- "sources",
- "warnings"
-]New value: +[
+ "duration_ms",
+ "cached",
+ "sources",
+ "warnings",
+ "next_actions"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, establishing safety. The description adds value by specifying the output composition (line additions, removals, unified diff) beyond what annotations state, while remaining consistent with read-only behavior. No contradictions found.
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, front-loaded sentence: 'Compare two texts and return structured line additions, removals, and a unified diff.' Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.
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?
Despite missing usage guidelines (covered separately), the description sufficiently outlines purpose and output. The schema provides parameter constraints, annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists to explain return values. The only gap is the meaning of 'context_lines', but it is a standard diff concept and constrained by the schema.
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%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'two texts' implicitly corresponds to 'before' and 'after', but 'context_lines' is not mentioned or explained. Parameter names are self-explanatory, and the schema includes type/length constraints, so partial compensation is achieved.
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 a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('two texts'), and specifies the output: 'structured line additions, removals, and a unified diff.' This is unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'developer.structured-diff', which could serve a similar purpose for structured data.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention contexts, exclusions, or naming sibling tools that might be more appropriate for structured diffs. The description simply states what it does without usage direction.
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.
Tools are grouped into clear domain prefixes (crypto, data, developer, document, research, web) and each tool name describes a specific function; however, a few umbrella tools like web.full-audit and data.contract overlap with their more targeted counterparts, creating minor ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: a domain prefix, a dot, and a hyphenated lowercase compound name (e.g., crypto.base-block-inspect, web.seo-audit). This makes naming predictable and easy to scan.
At 63 tools, the surface area is very large and exceeds the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. While the tools are organized into six domains, the sheer number makes it difficult for an agent to select efficiently, and some tools are bundled combinations of others.
Each domain offers a thorough set of operations: crypto covers address, account, block, contract, events, gas, and transaction inspection; data covers cleaning, conversion, schema, and validation; developer covers code review, dependency/license audits, and test generation; research covers SEC, OFAC, GLEIF, and USAspending; web covers extraction, SEO, security, and performance. No obvious dead ends exist for the read-only/inspection purpose.