Skip to main content
Glama
HakashiKatake

docorbit

by HakashiKatake
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

analyze_impact

Compare documentation or API version changes against project workspace files to identify affected code, exact line numbers, snippets, patterns, reasons, and certainty rankings.

Instructions

Compare detected documentation and API changes against current project workspace files. Identifies affected files, exact line numbers, code snippets, matched patterns, and traceable reasons with certainty rankings (high, medium, heuristic).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoAlias for toVersion.
fromNoAlias for fromVersion.
formatNoResponse format: "markdown" (default, human/agent-readable documentation) or "json" (structured raw machine data).
projectNoWorkspace root directory containing code files to analyze.
sourceIdNoOptional documentation source ID filter.
toVersionNoTarget or upgraded documentation version (e.g. "v15").
projectDirNoAlias for project directory.
fromVersionNoCurrent or base documentation version (e.g. "v14").
toSnapshotIdNoOptional target snapshot ID.
fromSnapshotIdNoOptional base snapshot ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / format
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Response format: \"markdown\" (default, human/agent-readable documentation) or \"json\" (structured raw machine data).",
+  "enum": [
+    "markdown",
+    "json"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.1.7
    • addedInput schema / properties / from
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias for fromVersion.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / projectDir
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias for project directory.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / to
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias for toVersion.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv0.1.4

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the output shape (affected files, line numbers, snippets, matched patterns) and the certainty ranking scheme (high/medium/heuristic), which is genuinely useful context. It omits any prerequisites (e.g., that a diff or versions/snapshots must exist) and cost or permission profile.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the output contract following. No filler, though the second sentence is a dense enumeration rather than integrated into the narrative.

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?

For a 10-parameter comparison tool with no annotations, the description covers the return contract adequately since no output schema exists, but it leaves the operational context thin: no prerequisites, no statement of what must already exist (a detected diff, valid versions/snapshots), and no relationship to the sibling diff/check tools that produce those inputs.

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%, so the schema already explains every parameter including the from/to aliases, versions, snapshots, project path, format enum, and sourceId filter. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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 names a specific action (compare detected documentation/API changes) and resource (current project workspace files), so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from likely-adjacent siblings such as diff_docs or check_api, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent can infer that this answers 'what will these changes break,' but nothing tells it whether to reach for this instead of diff_docs or check_api first.

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