baton_diff
두 핸드오프 스냅샷을 비교해 무엇이 바뀌었는지 반환한다(목표·상태·결정·다음할일·경고 추가/삭제). 어제 넘긴 것과 오늘 넘긴 것의 차이 확인.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to_code | Yes | ||
| from_code | Yes |
baton
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It describes what the tool returns (diff of specific categories) but does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether it is read-only. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences starting with the action verb 'compares'. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema or annotations, the description is moderately complete: it explains what the tool does and what it returns. However, parameter definitions are lacking, which reduces completeness.
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%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'two handoff snapshots' but does not explicitly map them to the 'from_code' and 'to_code' parameters, leaving ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it compares two handoff snapshots and returns changes in specific categories (goals, status, decisions, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like baton_account or baton_send.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The example of comparing yesterday's and today's snapshots gives clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives.
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
C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes due to detailed descriptions, but some potential overlaps exist (e.g., baton_revoke, baton_close_room, baton_leave). The complex domain is well-differentiated overall.
Naming Consistency3/5
The baton_ and spider_ prefixes provide consistency, but within baton_ there is a mix of verb-only, noun, and verb_noun patterns (e.g., baton_approve vs baton_account). Not fully predictable.
Tool Count2/5
With 45 tools, the server is very large and may overwhelm agents. While the domain is complex, many tools could potentially be consolidated, making the count excessive.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers account, room, handoff, verification, cost, memory, hub, task, and spider domains thoroughly. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit tool to list rooms), but core workflows are well-supported.