Skip to main content
Glama

sc_get_changelist

Retrieve the files in a source control changelist. For Git/SVN without explicit changelists, returns all locally modified files; empty list if no provider is set.

Instructions

Get files in a source control changelist.

For providers without explicit changelists (Git, SVN), returns all locally modified files.

When no provider is configured, returns an empty files list (success=True, available=False).

Args: changelist: Changelist name/number. 'default' = default changelist.

Returns: JSON StructuredResult with outputs: changelist — the queried changelist name description — changelist description (empty string if unavailable) available — bool — False when no SC provider files — [{path, state}]

KB: see knowledge_base/32_AGENT_PLAYABLE_SLICE_RECIPE.md#overview Example: sc_get_changelist()

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
changelistNodefault

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, and it does so well: it states what happens for providers without changelists, what happens when no provider is configured, and the exact output fields. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but 'Get' plus the non-mutating output description make that reasonably clear.

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?

The description is well-structured with intent, edge-case behavior, Args, Returns, a KB pointer, and an example. It is longer than strictly necessary but each section adds useful information and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description is complete: it covers argument semantics, provider edge cases, output structure, and a concrete invocation example. The output schema exists and the description still provides enough detail for an agent to know exactly what to expect.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'changelist' is explained as a changelist name/number and the special value 'default' is defined. This adds genuine meaning beyond the bare schema property and its default value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get files in a source control changelist.' It also clarifies fallback semantics for Git/SVN and no-provider cases, which makes the tool's scope clear even though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like sc_get_provider_info or sc_get_status.

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 implied by the purpose and the provider-behavior notes, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related source-control siblings or other changed-asset tools. The Git/SVN and no-provider behavior helps set expectations but does not provide alternatives or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools