Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@forgespace/ui-mcp

@forgespace/ui-mcp

Official
by Forge-Space
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

forge_diff

Compare quality changes between git branches or commits. Identify new findings and resolved issues to review pull request impact on code quality.

Instructions

Analyze quality delta between two git refs. Shows score change, new findings introduced, and resolved findings. Useful for PR quality checks.

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": {
      "directory": "<directory>"
    },
    "name": "forge_diff"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
directoryYesAbsolute path to the git repository
baseNoBase branch or commit to compare against (default: main)
headNoHead branch or commit (default: HEAD)
stagedNoAnalyze staged changes only

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.25.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses outputs (score change, findings) but does not state side effects (likely read-only), error conditions, or required access. 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 sentences: first states purpose, second gives use case. No wasted words, front-loaded with most important information.

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?

No output schema, so description should clarify return structure. It mentions what is shown but not format. Lacks details on error handling or performance. Adequate for simple use but not fully complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what is in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it analyzes quality delta between two git refs and shows score changes and findings. It distinguishes from siblings like forge_assess and forge_scan by focusing on delta, but could be more explicit.

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?

Mentions 'useful for PR quality checks' but provides no when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. Does not specify prerequisites like needing quality data in the repository.

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