File Diff — Show a line-by-line diff between two text files (file_a + file_b) or two pasted texts (text_a + text_b). Provide one complete pair. [category: analyze]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_a | No | First file — TXT, CSV, JSON, XML. Send file_a AND file_b together (file mode). | |
| file_b | No | Second file. | |
| text_a | No | First text — alternative to the file pair. Send text_a AND text_b together (text mode). | |
| text_b | No | Second text. |
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 and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the pairing constraint ('Provide one complete pair') — which matters because the schema lists 0 required parameters — and by specifying line-by-line output granularity. This is context the agent would not get from annotations alone.
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 core action is front-loaded and the critical pairing requirement is distilled into one short imperative sentence. Minor redundancy exists — the 'File Diff —' prefix restates the annotation title and '[category: analyze]' adds little — but these are small tokens of noise in an otherwise tight definition.
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 simple read-only tool with four self-documenting parameters, the description covers the essential operational trap (modes and pairing) and indicates the result shape ('line-by-line diff'), which partly compensates for the missing output schema. It would benefit from return-format or input-limit details (e.g., handling of binary inputs, size caps), but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
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 100%, and each parameter is already described, including the file-mode and text-mode pairing hints on file_a and text_a, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Provide one complete pair' reinforces the schema's existing mode guidance rather than adding new per-parameter meaning.
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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('line-by-line diff between two text files or two pasted texts'), and clearly delimits the tool's scope. Among dozens of analyze_* siblings, it is easily distinguishable as the text-diff tool, especially against photo_image_diff (image diff) and analyze_file (generic file analyzer).
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 clearly states how to invoke the tool — one complete file pair or one complete text pair — which is useful operational guidance. However, it never names alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., no mention of photo_image_diff for images, or a warning against binary inputs), so when-to-use vs alternatives is only implied.
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.
Multiple tool pairs are near-identical: octopus_mkdir/octopus_make_folder and octopus_move/octopus_move_file are literal duplicates, analyze_hash/generate_hash both compute hashes, convert_word_to_pdf overlaps convert_document, and photo_compress/photo_compress_to_size plus pdf_thumbnails/pdf_to_images have fuzzy boundaries. The descriptions are detailed and cross-reference each other helpfully, but at 144 tools an agent will regularly misselect.
The dominant {category}_{verb}_{object} snake_case pattern (pdf_*, photo_*, convert_*, analyze_*, media_*) is largely consistent and predictable. However, outliers like chatwithyourpdf and describe_image break the category-prefix convention, and the octopus namespace mixes bare verbs (read, write, mkdir) with verb_noun forms (make_folder, move_file, search_meta) inconsistently.
144 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server. The broad scope (PDF, photo, video, audio, conversion, analysis, generation, file storage, web, e-sign) justifies some volume, but the count is inflated by batch and inspect variants (pdf_to_excel + batch + inspect), duplicate tools, and overlapping converters. An agent faces an overwhelming selection surface.
Per-domain coverage is remarkably deep: PDF spans merge/split/compress/protect/unlock/metadata/OCR/watermark and bidirectional conversion; photo covers editing, format conversion, face handling, OCR, and collage; file storage has full CRUD plus search. Minor gaps exist (no audio transcription, no video metadata editing, no deletion of PDF pages is actually covered via pdf_delete_pages) but the surface has no dead ends for its declared domains.
