RepoPilot

Verify a dependency change after local work

verify_dependency_change

Read-onlyIdempotent

CALL after changing the manifest/lockfile and running local checks. Compares the exact evaluated target with the resolved result and caller-reported proof receipts, reports missing/failed evidence and residual risk, and labels receipts as caller asserted. It never runs commands or stores diff/check output.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`diff`	No
`after`	Yes
`checks`	Yes
`evaluation`	Yes	The verification_context object exactly as evaluate_dependency_change returned it, passed back unchanged. Its signature covers every field, so edit nothing inside it. Sending the whole evaluate result instead is accepted; the receipt is read out of its verification_context.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tool`	Yes
`agent`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`schema_version`	Yes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds a hard safety boundary: 'It never runs commands or stores diff/check output.' It also discloses trust semantics ('labels receipts as caller asserted') and output behavior ('reports missing/failed evidence and residual risk'), which are not inferable from the readOnly/idempotent 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with the imperative CALL and the precondition; each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: when to use it, what it does, and what it avoids. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a complex nested-schema tool, the description provides the workflow trigger, the comparison semantics, and the no-side-effect boundary. The output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described, and the evaluation parameter's schema description already covers the pass-back-unchanged requirement.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With schema description coverage at only 25%, the description compensates by mapping required inputs: 'exact evaluated target' → evaluation, 'resolved result' → after, and 'caller-reported proof receipts' → checks. The optional diff parameter is not detailed, but the three required parameters receive useful semantic labels.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it verifies a dependency change after local work. It further differentiates from siblings by specifying the comparison inputs (evaluated target, resolved result, caller-reported proof receipts) and the outputs (missing/failed evidence, residual risk).

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 opening 'CALL after changing the manifest/lockfile and running local checks' is explicit about when this tool belongs in the workflow. It does not name alternative tools or negative conditions, but the sequencing relative to evaluate_dependency_change is clear.

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

All RepoPilot tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

The set separates into repo-orientation, dependency-checking, and change-risk workflows, but there is real overlap: analyze_repo/get_artifact/plan_repo_task all provide orientation and reading order, and check_dependency vs. evaluate_dependency_change both fire before adding/upgrading a dependency. The descriptions help clarify intent, yet an agent could still struggle to pick the right one in unfamiliar scenarios.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: analyze_repo, check_dependency, compare_repos, evaluate_dependency_change, get_artifact, plan_repo_task, verify_dependency_change. The verbs are descriptive and the pattern makes the lifecycle stages predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is well within the ideal range for a server focused on repository and dependency due diligence. Each tool addresses a distinct phase of the workflow—orientation, planning, risk scoring, comparison, evaluation, and verification—without bloating the surface.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core lifecycle well: understanding a repo, planning work, assessing change risk, evaluating dependencies, comparing options, and verifying updates. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for auditing an entire dependency tree or comparing more than two candidates, but these are workable limitations rather than fatal omissions.

Resources

Need Help?