compose-bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_file_diff

Reads before and after content plus a unified diff for a modified file, so you can review exact changes before approving or rejecting them.

Instructions

Read-only. Returns before/after content and unified diff for a specific modified file.

What it does: Computes unified diff comparing original backup (.bridge.bak) with current on-disk content.
When to use: To inspect exact changes before approving (approve_file_changes) or rejecting (reject_file_changes).
When NOT to use: Use list_modified_files first to get valid paths. file_path should match the entry from list_modified_files (relative to project root).
Side effects: Read-only. No files modified.
Parameters:
  - file_path: relative path to project root (e.g., 'QuickActionsWidget.kt' or 'ui/theme/AppStrings.kt').
Returns:
  JSON string with original content, modified content, and unified diff.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_path`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden, and it does well: it declares read-only behavior, names the .bridge.bak backup source, and confirms no files are modified. It stops short of disclosing edge behavior — e.g. what happens when no backup exists or how large files are handled — which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Labeled sections (What it does / When to use / When NOT / Side effects / Parameters / Returns) make it scannable and front-loaded. Slight redundancy — read-only is stated three times, and the parameter example duplicates the usage note about matching list_modified_files entries.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the return shape (original, modified, unified diff) for quick scanning. Combined with the safety profile and the list_modified_files prerequisite, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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, and it does: file_path is explained as relative to project root with two concrete examples. It doesn't cover failure semantics for an invalid or non-modified path, leaving a small gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns before/after content and unified diff for a specific modified file') and goes further by explaining the computation (backup vs on-disk). The agent can distinguish this from list_modified_files or approve_file_changes without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly names when to use (inspecting changes before approve_file_changes / reject_file_changes) and when not to (needs list_modified_files first). Sibling tools are named as alternatives with the condition that selects them.

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