diff_rows
Compare two report versions by numeric row labels with provenance.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rows_after | Yes | ||
| rows_before | Yes |
NumProof
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'provenance' but does not disclose destructive/read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, or any behavioral traits beyond comparing versions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence with no wasted words, efficient. However, it could be slightly expanded for clarity without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool but description lacks completeness. No output schema, no details on what comparison produces (e.g., diff result). Missing behavioral and result context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet description adds minimal meaning ('by numeric row labels'). Parameters 'rows_before' and 'rows_after' are arrays, but no format or type details beyond 'numeric row labels' is implied.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool compares two report versions using numeric row labels, with provenance mention. It distinguishes from siblings (audit_rows, covenant_rules, verify_claim) by focusing on version comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify context, prerequisites, or scenarios for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct task: auditing spreadsheet integrity, evaluating covenants, comparing versions, and verifying claims. No overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency4/5
Three tools use verb_noun pattern (audit_rows, diff_rows, verify_claim). covenant_rules breaks the pattern but is still clear and readable.
Tool Count5/5
4 tools is well-scoped for a specialized server focused on spreadsheet analysis and verification. No extraneous tools.
Completeness4/5
Coverage is good for auditing and verification tasks. Missing features like data import/export or row editing are not core to the stated purpose, so only a minor gap.