getGitDiffRetrieve a git diff for a specific workspace and app, optionally narrowing by commit SHA or file path, to review code changes. Large patches are flagged with truncated: true.
With no sha, diffs the working tree. path narrows it to one file. Large patches come back with truncated: true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| env | No | ||
| sha | No | ||
| path | No | ||
| region | No | ||
| appSlug | Yes | ||
| workspaceSlug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds that without a `sha` it diffs the working tree and that large patches are truncated with `truncated: true`. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't contradict any annotations.
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?
Two sentences with no filler, front-loading the core behavior and then adding the truncation note. It's appropriately sized and well-structured.
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?
With six parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the return format, parameter roles, and any other behaviors. It only covers the diff behavior and truncation, leaving much unstated. This is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.
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?
The description explains the `sha` and `path` parameters, but the schema has 0% coverage, so it carries the burden of explaining all six parameters. It leaves `env`, `region`, `appSlug`, and `workspaceSlug` unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly use the tool.
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 clearly states it diffs the working tree and can narrow to a file with `path`. It specifies a verb and resource, making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like runGitAction or inspectSource, so it's not a 5.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like runGitAction or inspectSource. It only implies usage by describing the diff operation. There are no exclusions or conditions that would help an agent choose this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.