OKForest

Read a change

get_change

Read-onlyIdempotent

One change to a tree, as list_changes names it: what was asked, each file's edit (frontmatter field by field, then its lines), what the checks found, who decided or applied it, its comments, and its page, where editors review and apply it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_change"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The change's ID, as list_changes gives it.
`tree`	No	The tree's slug, as list_trees gives it (not its name). Required unless the Forest has one tree.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`by`	Yes	Who asked for it, by name.
`id`	Yes	The change's ID: pass it to get_change.
`url`	Yes	Its page in OKForest, where editors review and apply it.
`about`	No	The page it was asked about, when it was asked from one.
`asked`	Yes	When it was asked for (ISO 8601).
`edits`	Yes	Its edits, one per file.
`paths`	Yes	The files it creates, edits, moves, or deletes.
`state`	Yes	Where it is: `requested` (asked for, waiting for an editor), `drafting` (accepted, an editor writing its edits), `in-review` (edits written, waiting for an editor to apply them), or done: `applied` (committed), `declined`, or `withdrawn` by whoever asked.
`title`	Yes	What it does, in a few words: its commit's first line.
`applied`	No	Who applied it, when, and in which commit.
`decided`	No	The editor who accepted or declined it, and when.
`updated`	Yes	When it last changed (ISO 8601).
`comments`	Yes	Its comments, oldest first.
`findings`	Yes	What the checks found on its pages when it was last saved.
`instruction`	No	What was asked for, in the asker's words, when it was asked rather than edited.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful framing — that a change is scoped to a tree and is the artifact editors review and apply — but says nothing about permission requirements, behavior when the id is unknown, or how much data comes back.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single front-loaded sentence, which is efficient in structure, but most of its bulk is a run-on enumeration of returned fields (frontmatter, lines, checks, comments, page) that duplicates what the output schema already provides. That enumeration does not earn its place in a definition that has an output schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a rich output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description only needs to establish what the resource is and its role in the workflow, and it does that — a change belongs to a tree and is reviewed/applied via its page. The remaining gap is the absence of any distinction from get_history, which an agent must infer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are already well documented there, including the "tree slug, not its name" caveat and the single-tree fallback. The description only echoes the origin of the id ("as list_changes names it") and adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies a specific resource (one change belonging to a tree) and names its sibling as the source of the identifier ("as list_changes names it"), which lets an agent distinguish it from the list endpoint. However, it never states the action plainly ("read/retrieve") and instead defines the tool by enumerating its return payload, so the verb is inferred from the title rather than the text.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: "as list_changes names it" suggests the id comes from list_changes, and the closing clause notes the page is where editors review and apply a change. There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of how it differs from get_history or get_concept, and no guidance on what to do when the change is not found.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All OKForest tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?