DPR MCP Server

by Janani879

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation3/5
Read_file, read_project_file, and read_change_file all fetch file content from different contexts, and approve_change/request_changes are convenience wrappers over review_change. Descriptions help, but the boundaries are easy to mix up in a set of this size.
Naming Consistency4/5
Snake_case imperative verb_noun naming is used consistently throughout, with no mixed casing styles. Minor deviations exist in get_/read_/ list_ patterns and the pluralized request_changes, but overall the naming is predictable.
Tool Count2/5
At 35 tools, the set clearly exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels heavy for an agent to navigate. Many operations are needed, but convenience wrappers and several file-read/diff variants add avoidable bulk.
Completeness4/5
The domain is broadly covered: workspaces and files, change creation/update/review/merge/rebase/rollback, conflict handling, and provenance. Missing project update/delete operations are a minor gap, but core workflows have no dead ends.
Average 3.3/5 across 35 of 35 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, and the description provides no behavioral details: no mention of irreversibility, status changes, side effects, or permissions. The description merely restates the action implied by the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and free of fluff, but it is too terse to be considered well-structured. A single sentence can be effective when it carries enough information, but here it only repeats the tool's name with minimal context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation-like operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least state consequences or prerequisites. It does not cover whether abandonment is reversible, how it affects related items, or what success looks like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description should clarify how change_id is used, but it does not. The parameter name and schema title 'Change Id' make the intent somewhat obvious, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'abandon' a 'Change Request'. This distinguishes it from siblings like merge_change or approve_change, but it does not elaborate on what abandonment means or when it applies.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus rollback_change, update_change, or request_changes. The intended context is only implied by the verb 'abandon', with no explicit suggestions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral implications. It only says 'approve a Change Request,' without mentioning side effects, whether approval is final or reversible, permissions required, or what happens after approval. 'Convenience wrapper' also obscures rather than reveals behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, but it is under-specified. 'Convenience wrapper' adds little and is jargon; the sentence is compact but does not earn its place by providing useful operational detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks necessary workflow context: for example, prerequisites, side effects, whether approval triggers merge, and the expected result. For an approval action in a change-management workflow, this is not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description has to explain the parameters, but it does not. 'change_id' is understandable from the tool name, yet the description does not clarify how 'comment' is used, whether it is required for approval, or what values are valid.
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 identifies a specific action ('approve') and a resource ('Change Request'), so an agent can infer the tool's core purpose. However, the phrase 'Convenience wrapper' is vague and does not clarify what underlying steps are wrapped or how this differs from direct actions like review_change, request_changes, or update_change.
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 guidance about when to use approve_change versus sibling tools such as review_change, request_changes, or merge_change. The description simply states the action, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria and any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It reveals that a project is created, but it does not mention side effects, auth requirements, failure behavior, or whether the operation is idempotent.
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?
The description is one tight sentence with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An unannotated creation tool with two undocumented parameters and no output schema needs more than a single phrase. There is no explanation of how the project is created, what is required, or what the agent should expect after invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no meaning for project_id or name. An agent gets no additional insight into what these parameters represent, their format, or their relationship to a project.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new Git-backed project.' It is clear and not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like create_workspace.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_workspace. The description only states the operation itself, without prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. The parenthetical "overwrite" usefully signals that the full content is replaced rather than patched, and "active workspace" names a precondition. However, it does not disclose behavior on missing files, error conditions, side effects beyond the file content, or what a successful call returns.
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?
A single, well-constructed sentence with no filler — every phrase ("Edit", "overwrite", "existing file", "active workspace") carries meaning and the key overwrite semantics are front-loaded in parentheses. It is appropriately economical, though the brevity inevitably sacrifices the usage and parameter guidance scored elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description covers only the tool's action and two preconditions. An agent is left without error behavior, what happens when the file does not exist, whether the content must be complete, or how this interacts with workspace activation. It is adequate as a label but not as complete context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining parameters, but it mentions none of them. The parameter names (workspace_id, path, content) are somewhat self-evident, yet there is no clarification of what format path should take, what workspace_id refers to, or that content replaces the entire file. The description does nothing to compensate for the bare schema.
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 states a specific verb ("Edit") plus an explicit overwrite semantic in parentheses, a clear resource ("an existing file"), and a scoping constraint ("active workspace"). This makes it distinguishable from siblings such as create_file, read_file, and delete_file, though it could more explicitly contrast with those alternatives.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_file or delete_file, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. The preconditions "existing file" and "active workspace" are implicitly stated but the agent is left to infer that edit_file should only be used when a file already exists and the workspace is active.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', which implies read-only, but it does not disclose whether the operation requires special permissions, what happens if the change ID doesn't exist, or whether the return is a full change object or a summary. Without annotations, this is a meaningful gap.
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 a single short sentence with no fluff and the key verb+resource pattern is front-loaded. It is concise but also minimal to the point of under-explaining, so it loses one point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a retrieval tool with no output schema, no annotations, and many closely-related sibling tools, the description is under-specified. It does not outline what the response contains, what happens on unknown ID, or what related follow-up actions (e.g., reading change files) an agent might want; an agent is left with only the tool name to infer behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter, but it merely says 'by id', adding nothing beyond the parameter name 'change_id' and title 'Change Id'. It does not describe the expected format of the ID, how to obtain it, or any constraints (e.g., UUID vs string).
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('a Change Request by id'), so an agent knows this is an ID-based lookup. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_changes or read_change_file, but the singular 'by id' hints at retrieving one specific change.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_changes should be used to find changes without an ID, or read_change_file for file contents within a change. The agent is left to infer use cases from the bare verb and parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the diff is 'structured' and does not explain what that structure contains (e.g., changed files, hunks, metadata), whether the base and head revisions need to be ordered, or any operational constraints such as size limits or error behavior when revisions are missing.
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 one short sentence with no filler, making it very concise. It earns a 4 because while it is structurally efficient, it is so minimal that it omits relevant details an agent would rely on, stopping it from being a masterclass of an effective description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a large set of sibling tools with nearly overlapping purposes, a single-sentence description is too thin. The agent is left without critical information about the return shape, parameter constraints, precise revision semantics, or any discrimination from other tools in the workspace, so it is not complete for practical selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is given as what is effectively 0%, and the description does not compensate. The terms 'project_id', 'base_revision', and 'head_revision' are used verbatim, but no format, unit, or semantic details are provided (e.g., what type of revision identifier is expected, whether a hash or change number, and how the project id relates to other APIs).
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a resource ('structured diff between two revisions in a project'), clearly indicating the tool's core function. It remains distinguishable from siblings like get_file_patch, get_revision, or get_history, but it doesn't explicitly highlight how it differs from them or detail what the structured diff looks like.
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?
No explicit usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_file_patch, get_revision), nor does it mention when not to use it. The only implied usage comes from the phrase 'between two revisions', but this is not enough for an agent to decide reliably among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explain what information is returned, any side effects, or the response shape, which leaves the actual behavior largely unspecified.
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 one short, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded. The brevity is a completeness concern rather than a structure problem, so conciseness gets a strong score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, but the description does not clarify the return payload or the precise distinction from other commit-related tools. An agent can identify what the tool nominally does, but not enough to use it confidently in a complex context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must provide meaning for the parameters, but it only hints that `revision` is a commit revision. It gives no format, accepted values, or clarification about how `project_id` relates to the revision lookup, leaving the parameters only barely understandable.
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 uses a specific verb (Get) and a specific resource (a single commit revision), making the tool's basic purpose clear. It doesn't state what fields the details include or contrast it with get_diff/get_history/get_file_patch, so it stops just short of full differentiation.
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?
The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_diff or get_history. An agent must infer entirely from the tool name what situation calls for this tool versus its many siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only restates the action without explaining what the request does to the Change Request, whether it sends comments to reviewers, creates follow-up tasks, or affects the change lifecycle.
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 short and front-loaded with the key purpose. However, the phrase 'Convenience wrapper:' adds little concrete value and takes up space that could have been used for behavioral or parameter clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description does not explain what a request for changes does to the Change Request, what the required comment must contain once, or what the caller should provide to be successful. For a tool with two required parameters and no output schema, this is too sparse for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is responsible for explaining the parameters. It does not mention 'change_id' or 'comment' at all, and while the parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, the meaning of 'comment' in the context of requesting changes is not clarified.
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 is clear about the overall action: it requests changes on a Change Request. The phrasing 'Convenience wrapper' hints at a higher-level operation, but it does not distinguish the tool from siblings like 'review_change', 'approve_change', or 'abandon_change'.
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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of any sibling, and no mention of alternatives or preconditions. The 'Convenience wrapper' phrase implies a shortcut, but it never clarifies what workflow it wraps or when it should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It says 'Get a textual patch' but does not state whether the operation is read-only, how revisions are resolved, what happens on missing files, or what format the returned patch uses. This is a minimal statement without operational expectations.
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?
The description is a single, maintenance-free sentence with no redundant words. Every term, including 'textual', 'one file', and 'two project revisions', carries relevant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given four required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this is too sparse. An agent cannot fully know the return contract, error conditions, revision ordering, or whether the patch is unified vs. another format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameter descriptions and the description contributes almost nothing to parameter meaning. Names like 'base_revision' and 'head_revision' are somewhat self-explanatory, but their exact ordering, value format, and relationship to 'project_id' remain unspecified.
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 identifies the operation ('Get a textual patch') and the precise resource scope ('one file between two project revisions'). This separates it from read_file and from generic get_diff, though it does not explicitly name 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_diff or read_change_file. There is no mention of a preferred context, such as per-file patch analysis, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a non-destructive read operation and ties it to an active workspace, but it does not disclose error semantics, file-size limitations, or what happens when the requested path does not exist.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise, though slightly too terse given the presence of several closely related sibling tools.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter explanation, the description is the only source of contextual information. It does not help an agent choose between read_file, read_project_file, and read_change_file, nor does it explain how the return content is delivered. The tool may be callable, but the context is not sufficient for confident selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain the workspace_id or path parameters beyond implying a workspace context. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds little real semantic value for agent invocation.
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 states a clear action and resource: 'Read a file's content from within an active workspace.' However, it does not differentiate read_file from sibling read tools like read_project_file or read_change_file, so it cannot reach a 5.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as read_project_file, read_change_file, list_files, or search_files. The phrase 'active workspace' implies a condition, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool records a review with one of three decisions, but gives no indication of side effects, such as whether this changes the request's status, whether it can overwrite an existing review, whether it is a write operation, or what it returns.
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?
A single, compact sentence delivers the core purpose and the acceptable decision values, placing the most important operational information up front. There is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation-like tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a sibling set that includes approve_change and request_changes, the description is too sparse. It omits the relationship to those siblings, the effect on the change request status, return behavior, and conditions or permission requirements, so an agent is not sufficiently equipped to serially invoke this tool correctly.
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?
The description adds useful meaning not present in the input schema: it names the valid values for the 'decision' property, which the schema leaves as an unconstrained string. It also puts 'comment' in review context, but doesn't clearly document the comment field's purpose or the change_id semantics beyond the resource name.
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 ('Record'), a clear resource ('a Change Request'), and enumerates the three permitted review decision values: APPROVED, CHANGES_REQUESTED, or COMMENTED. It is clear and operationally specific, though it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling tools approve_change and request_changes.
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?
The description provides no guidance about when to use review_change versus the closely related sibling tools approve_change, request_changes, or even update_change. An agent must infer the tool's role from its name and sibling list, which is unreliable given the overlap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only explains that a Change Request is created from workspace commits, with no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or how commits are selected. This is minimal, not misleading, but far from transparent.
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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for such a simple action, although brevity partially comes at the expense of useful context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a controlling action with no annotations and no output schema, this definition is too thin. It should at least indicate that the workspace must have commits and that a rationale is required for the Change Request, so an agent can judge preconditions and mandatory inputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain either workspace_id or rationale. Rationale is a required parameter, yet the description gives no hint of what rationale means, leaving providers without needed parameter semantics.
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 ('create') and a distinct resource ('a Change Request'), and adds the source ('from the commits in a workspace'), so it is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_workspace and create_file. The action and object are unambiguous.
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?
The description implies the usage: call this when a Change Request should be created from the commits in a workspace. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, contraindications, or when to prefer another tool, so guidance remains only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'Delete a file' and does not mention whether deletion is permanent, irreversible, permission-gated, or destructive to any related state. For a destructive operation, more transparency is required.
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?
The description is a single, short sentence with no filler. It states the verb, resource, and a key scope condition in the fewest possible words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation. The description is too brief to convey important operational context such as permanence, error behavior, workspace prerequisites, or file path conventions. It falls below minimum viability for safe automatic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds no parameter details. It does not explain how 'path' should be formatted, whether it is absolute or workspace-relative, or what 'workspace_id' refers to. The basic property titles provide some meaning, but the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
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?
The description uses a specific verb-and-resource pair ('Delete a file') and adds the scope 'within an active workspace.' This is enough to distinguish the tool from siblings like delete_workspace or create_file, so an agent can tell what the tool is for immediately.
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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'within an active workspace' implies an environmental prerequisite, but it does not instruct an agent about the right context for file deletion or exclude sibling tools like delete_workspace.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only repeats the word 'delete' with a parenthetical synonym. It does not state that the operation is permanent or irreversible, does not mention potential side effects on associated resources, and fails to clarify what happens on failure. The ownership condition is the only meaningful behavioral context provided.
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?
The sentence is extremely concise and appropriately front-loaded. Every word adds meaning, and it avoids redundant information. For a one-parameter tool with a simple operation, this is an appropriately minimal definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a single undocumented parameter, the description has the responsibility to provide sufficient context for a safe and correct call. It does not mention the permanent and irreversible nature of the deletion, does not explain the return value or error behavior, and does describe the impact on projects/files associated with the workspace. This is incomplete for a destructive operation.
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 0%, so the description is the only place to clarify the parameter. It does relate 'workspace_id' to 'a workspace you own,' which covers the identity and ownership constraint, but it omits any other guidance about the value format, required permissions, or that the workspace must already exist.
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?
The description uses the specific verb 'Delete' with the resource 'workspace' and adds the ownership condition 'you own,' which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_workspace, get_workspace, list_workspaces, and delete_file. The resource is explicit and the action is unambiguous.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of related tools like list_workspaces for finding the correct workspace_id, and no exclusions. The only implied usage is that the tool targets owned workspaces, but that is not enough to steer an agent toward or away from other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It indicates a read-style operation returning a complete record, but it does not disclose response format, failure behavior, required permissions, limits, or whether anything else is returned along with the provenance.
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?
The description is one efficient sentence with no filler. The resource and action are front-loaded, making the core purpose immediately apparent.
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 one-parameter lookup, this is close to minimally viable, but it lacks return-value expectations, error behavior, and any disambiguation from the many related read/history tools. The absence of an output schema makes this vagueness more costly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the change_id parameter, but it does not directly address the parameter. It indirectly relates the tool to a Change Request, yet it never says how to supply the ID, what format it should take, or where to obtain it.
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?
The description gives a clear verb and resource: get a provenance record for a Change Request. The term 'provenance' is unique among the sibling tools and distinct from get_change, get_history, get_revision, and get_diff, so an agent can reasonably tell this tool apart.
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 guidance about when to choose this tool instead of related read operations such as get_history, get_diff, or get_change. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'get provenance record,' with no alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the operation is 'subject to the same approval policy as any other merge', providing some policy context. However, with no annotations present, there is a lack of detail about potential side effects, reversibility, or what happens if the resolution is out of date. This is mostly an operational note, not full behavioral transparency.
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 concise at two sentences and front-loads the core action ('Apply (merge)...') before the policy note. It is appropriately sized and no wasted words, though it could potentially include more details without becoming verbose.
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?
The tool has a single parameter and no output schema, so the description is relatively complete. It explains the general scope and the approval policy, but it does not clarify what the tool returns or what conditions must be met (e.g., the resolution must be approved) beyond the minimal context. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but leaves some questions.
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%, meaning the schema only provides a bare parameter name with no description. The description adds context that the parameter 'conflict_id' refers to a previously proposed and reviewed resolution, which helps clarify its purpose. Because there is only one parameter and the description gives some meaning beyond just the type, it compensates reasonably for the schema gap.
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 states a specific verb ('Apply') with a specific resource ('previously proposed and reviewed conflict resolution'), clearly indicating this tool merges an approved resolution. However, it does not mention the exact action type (merge) in a way that strongly distinguishes it from other file operations like edit_file or create_file, though the 'conflict resolution' context helps differentiate.
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?
The description implies this tool is for applying a previously reviewed resolution, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like edit_file or get_diff. The phrase 'previously proposed and reviewed' provides some context but no clear exclusion criteria or explicit comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait: defaulting to the default branch when no revision is given, which goes beyond the schema's literal 'main' default. However, it does not disclose the return format, error behavior, or read-only/no-side-effect nature of the call.
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?
A single 13-word sentence with zero filler; the operational core 'Read a file from a project revision' is front-loaded. Every word contributes either to the action or the key defaulting behavior.
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 simple read tool this is minimally viable, but the absence of output schema, annotations, and any mention of siblings leaves the agent without guidance on return content or selection among many similar read-function tools. The brief description is not complete enough for reliable decision-making in a large sibling group.
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 parameter descriptions are at 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully clarifies the revision parameter by framing it as 'project revision' and mentioning default-branch fallback, but it leaves the semantics of path (e.g., repo-relative vs. absolute) and project_id wholly to inference.
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 states a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('a file'), and scope ('from a project revision'), which clearly conveys the basic function. It partially distinguishes itself from siblings like read_change_file by tying the read to a project revision, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the generic read_file sibling, leaving some selection ambiguity.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not contrast with read_file, read_change_file, or get_file_patch, nor does it state when reading at a specific project revision is preferable to other read paths.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It tells the agent this is a rebase operation, but does not mention that rebasing rewrites history, can be destructive to local workspace state, may produce conflicts, or that the operation likely mutates the change request. This lack of warning is risky for an operation of this nature.
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?
The description is a single, well-formed sentence that front-loads the key action and target. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the input shape is simple, this is a potentially destructive and history-rewriting mutation. The description does not mention conflict handling, available workspace states, whether the change request must be active, or what the expected outcome is. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent is left without enough behavioral context to call this safely in all situations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate by explicitly explaining what change_id refers to. The description only indirectly implies that change_id identifies a Change Request; it does not define the format, source, or any relationship to the workspace branch. For one visually self-descriptive parameter, this gap is moderate rather than severe.
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?
The description clearly states the action (rebase), the resource (a Change Request's workspace branch), and the target (the current default branch). It is sufficiently specific to differentiate rebase_change from sibling tools like merge_change or update_change, even without naming them.
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?
The description implies when the tool is useful: when a change request's workspace branch needs rebasing onto the current default branch. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist, such as merge_change or check_mergeability, so some inference is required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the full behavioral burden rests on the description. Yet the description does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it performs any computation on the branch, what the return value looks like, or whether it can have side effects. 'Check' suggests a safe query but never says so.
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?
The description is a single clear sentence that fronts the operation immediately. It is short, substantive, and contains no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.
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 single-parameter predicate, this is minimally viable: it tells the agent what is being checked and against what. But the absent output schema, absent annotations, and missing return-value/behavioral details leave an agent guessing at the expected response and side-effect profile.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not explain what change_id is or how to obtain it. The parameter name is self-explanatory to a degree, but the description itself adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema.
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?
The description names a specific verb ('check whether') and a specific resource ('Change Request'), along with the target context ('project's default branch'). It is clearly differentiated from siblings like merge_change and get_conflicts because it asks about mergeability rather than performing or resolving a merge.
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?
The usage is implied: use this tool when you need to know whether a Change Request will merge cleanly. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over related tools such as get_conflicts or merge_change, so the agent has to infer the conditional context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states the main action (creating a new file) but does not mention what happens if the file already exists, whether parent directories are created, what permissions are required, or what errors may occur. This leaves significant operational behavior opaque.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes, and the sentence is concise without sacrificing clarity.
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?
The core intent is clear enough for a simple create-file operation, and the schema supplies all parameter structure. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the absence of behavior-on-collision or directory handling guidance makes the description only minimally complete for an agent deciding whether and how to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description only clarifies workspace_id through the 'active workspace' phrase. It does not add any meaning to the path or content parameters, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names alone.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a new file') with a clear scope ('within an active workspace'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_workspace, create_project, edit_file, and delete_file without needing to open 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'within an active workspace' provides a context for when the tool applies, but the description never explicitly contrasts with alternatives such as edit_file for existing files or create_workspace for creating the workspace itself. The intended use is only implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention possible error conditions, required permissions, or precisely which details are returned. A get operation is generally low-risk, but the description does not go beyond the obvious implication.
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?
The description is a single focused sentence, directly front-loading the operation and its object. Every word adds necessary meaning, and there is no redundant 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?
For a simple one-parameter get tool, the description is minimally viable: it identifies the resource and how to select it. However, there is no output schema and the description does not state what form the 'details' take, any error behavior, or access requirements. Several small gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It only restates 'by id' in relation to workspace_id, without clarifying ID format, source, or validation. The single parameter is minimally explained, so value above the schema is marginal.
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?
The description uses a clear verb ('Get') and target resource ('details of a workspace') with an explicit lookup key ('by id'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like list_workspaces or create_workspace because it specifies a singular fetch operation by identifier.
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?
The description implies when to use it: when you already have a workspace_id and want its details. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as preferring list_workspaces when you need multiple workspaces. Usage context is present but mostly implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It says a workspace is created and that it is isolated, but it does not describe the return value, success/failure modes, required prerequisites, idempotency, or how the created workspace relates to the rest of the workflow. This gap matters for a create operation with no output schema.
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?
The description is one tight, front-loaded sentence. It opens with the verb, names the resource and the purpose, and contains no wordy filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide enough context about what calling this tool produces and how it fits into the workflow. It gives the purpose but omits the return behavior, the use of project_id, and any note about the workspace needing later cleanup via delete_workspace.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never explains project_id, even though it is required. The parameter name and the phrase 'for making changes to a project' make a rough connection, but the description does not compensate for the absent schema guidance, such as clarifying project_id is the target project for the workspace.
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?
Description states a specific verb ('Create'), a distinct resource ('isolated Git worktree workspace'), and the purpose ('for making changes to a project'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling workspace tools like get_workspace, list_workspaces, and delete_workspace, as well as from create_project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for making changes to a project' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when the agent needs an isolated environment to modify code. It doesn't list exclusions or compare to an alternative, but the intended use case is reasonably explicit and not misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'structured conflict information' and gives no further detail on read-only behavior, what triggers errors, whether the request must already be flagged conflicted, or what the returned structure entails. This leaves the agent with significant behavioral ambiguity.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes to exposing the tool's core function. No unnecessary examples, fluff, or redundant restating of the tool name are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description carries the burden for explaining return format, expectations, and error conditions. It simply says 'structured conflict information' without specifying the shape, meaning, or the relationship to the many sibling conflict-related tools. The description is not sufficient for an agent to confidently interpret the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the change_id parameter at all. While the parameter name 'change_id' is somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning about what ID is expected, whether it is a temporary ID, or how the ID relates to a Change Request. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('conflicted Change Request'), and names the product ('structured conflict information'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_diff or propose_conflict_resolution, which serve different purposes. The intent is immediately recognizable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for a conflicted Change Request' explicitly states the context in which this tool should be used. It does not, however, name alternatives or describe when not to use it, like relying on check_mergeability or propose_conflict_resolution instead. This makes the usage guidance clear but not fully enumerative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what exactly is returned, whether results are limited, or whether special permissions are required. The default-branch checkout detail provides some useful scope, but not enough behavioral transparency.
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?
The description is a single clear sentence with no filler. The key action and scope are front-loaded, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or parameter names.
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?
This is a simple two-parameter tool, and the description is enough to guess the intended call. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the lack of detail about return format, query semantics, and read-only behavior leaves a noticeable gap for an agent deciding how to use the invokes correctly.
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?
The input schema provides only names and string types for query and project_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description helps interpret query as a content-search term and project_id as a project scope, but it does not provide explicit per-parameter guidance or query syntax.
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?
The description clearly identifies a specific verb (Search), resource (file contents), and scope (a project's default branch checkout). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_files and read_file, which operate on filenames or file content retrieval rather than content search.
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?
The description implies the intended use: finding where content appears in a project's files. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over list_files, read_file, or grep-like alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description conveys the read-only nature of the operation and the optional path filter, but it does not disclose behaviors around the `revision` and `limit` parameters, result ordering, or what happens when the path is omitted. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full transparency burden and only partially meets it.
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?
The description is one short sentence, front-loads the primary action, and introduces the optional path scoping after the core purpose. There is no redundant language or wasted context.
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?
The description gives the minimal context for a basic invocation but falls short of being complete: it ignores the revision and limit parameters, does not provide alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools, and leaves all parameter nuance to a schema with no descriptions. The presence of an output schema lightens the return-value burden, but not enough to make this a complete tool definition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only addresses `path` ('optionally scoped to a path'); it leaves `revision`, `limit`, and `project_id` semantics to the schema, whose existing titles and defaults are not enough to clarify domain-specific behavior like the meaning of `revision` or `limit` limits.
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?
The description names a specific verb ('Get'), a concrete resource ('commit history'), and its scope ('for a project, optionally scoped to a path'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_revision or get_diff, which refer to single revisions or diffs rather than project history.
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?
The usage is reasonably implied: use this tool when you need the commit history of a project. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over closely related siblings such as get_provenance or get_revision, nor does it state any exclusions or non-use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' signals a read-only operation and the parenthetical lists what the summary covers, which is useful, but the description does not explicitly confirm it only reads and does not modify project state.
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?
One sentence, direct verb, and front-loaded purpose. Every word contributes to specifying the tool's resource and output scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter getter, this is nearly complete: it gives the input, the result type, and the main summary components. It lacks exact output format details, but the parts in parentheses adequately convey what the summary contains.
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 0%, so the description must do the work. It refers to 'a project,' which maps clearly to the required project_id parameter, but it does not add detail about the ID format, whether the parameter is a UUID, or how to supply it beyond the schema's required flag.
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?
States a clear operation ('Get') and resource ('a project'), and further defines the result as a 'summary status' covering branches, open changes, and active workspaces. The 'summary' qualifier helps distinguish it from more detailed tool siblings, though it does not explicitly call any of them out.
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?
The phrase 'summary status' implies this is for high-level project overview rather than fetching a single branch, change, or workspace, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_workspace or list_changes. No alternative tools or exclusion conditions are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description has the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a project-scoped list with an optional status filter, which conveys a likely read-only behavior. It does not address pagination, ordering, or edge cases, but for this simple list operation the listing behavior is 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no filler. The verb and main resource are front-loaded, and the optional status filter is stated briefly without repeating schema 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?
The output schema exists, so return structure need not be described. The core action is clear and useful for a simple two-parameter tool, but the missing status vocabulary and lack of pagination/ordering guidance leave some practical gaps for agents calling the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description needs to compensate, but it only says the list can be filtered by status. Status values are not enumerated or described, and project_id formatting is not meaningfully expanded on. This leaves ambiguity about what valid status values the tool expects.
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?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and a specific resource 'Change Requests for a project,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_projects and list_files, and from per-change tools like get_change. The optional status filter is also made 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?
The description implies when to use the tool—when a project-level enumeration of change requests is needed—and mentions the optional status filter. However, it does not state conditions for using alternatives, such as get_change or list_projects, and provides no exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that the operation is a mutation and that is has a non-obvious side effect: refreshing the Change Request's head revision. But it does not disclose whether this is reversible, whether it changes history or commits, or what permissions are needed.
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?
The description is one tightly written sentence with no filler. The main action comes first and the secondary effect is stated without wasted words.
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 two-parameter mutation tool, this is minimally adequate: it tells the agent what action to take and that there is an additional revision-refresh side effect. But with no output schema, no annotations, and a 0% parameter description coverage, the description leaves return behavior and the meaning of 'refresh head revision' largely unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It mentions 'rationale' by name but does not explain its format, that null may be used to clear it, or how change_id behaves as the target identifier. The agent gets little beyond the bare field names from the schema.
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?
The description names a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a Change Request'), and specifies the exact scope: rationale plus refresh of head revision. This is enough to distinguish it from the many read-only and workflow sibling tools such as get_change, review_change, merge_change, and abandon_change.
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?
The intended use is implied clearly: call this tool when a Change Request's rationale must be updated. However, the description does not explicitly say when not to use it, nor does it contrast it with alternatives like create_change for a new change or abandon_change for discarding one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies no side effects and 'known to this server' clarifies scope, but it does not state access semantics, pagination, or any nuance about which projects are included or excluded.
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?
The description is one short sentence with the verb and resource placed first. It contains no filler and communicates the tool's scope efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is almost sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool. The only real gap is a lack of explicit statement about whether the operation is read-only and which access scope applies.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The word 'all' reinforces that no filter exists and all projects are returned, which adds useful semantic clarity beyond the empty input schema.
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 uses a clear verb, 'List', and a specific resource, 'all projects known to this server.' It identifies the operation's scope well, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling list tools such as list_workspaces or list_changes.
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: use this tool when you need to enumerate all projects. However, there is no explicit guidance about alternatives like list_workspaces or list_changes, nor any clear 'when not to use' guidance. For a zero-parameter list tool this is acceptable but not strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of conveying behavior. It does make clear this is a non-mutating listing operation and adds the 'active' scoping, which is useful. But it does not describe any side effects, permission implications, ordering, or handling of projects with no workspaces, some of which could matter for correct interpretation.
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?
The description is a single, short, front-loaded sentence that has no filler or repetition. Every word adds meaning, making it easy for an agent to ingest quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter, read-only list operation with an output schema, this description is nearly complete. The main missing context is guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling workspace tools, though that is already captured in the usage dimension and the tool's simplicity makes this gap non-critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 only says 'for a project,' which adds little beyond the already self-explanatory parameter name 'project_id'. It does not elaborate on the expected format, possible values, or relationship to other resources, leaving the parameter minimally explained.
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?
The description provides a clear verb ('List') and resource ('workspaces'), scoped by project, and the 'active' qualifier adds specificity. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings such as get_workspace (single workspace), list_projects (different entity, and list_files (different resource).
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?
The description implies a usage scenario: use this when you need the active workspaces belonging to a project. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'get_workspace' for a single workspace or 'list_projects' for projects. Usage guidance is reasonable but left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description necessarily carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core mutating behavior (merging into the default branch) and the eligibility requirements (approved, conflict-free). It does not state consequences such as irreversibility, failure modes when preconditions are not met, or permissions needed.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence carries all the essential information: what is merged, under what conditions, and into what target. 'approved, conflict-free' is a necessary constraint and is not wasted words.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the core action and its preconditions but leaves unknown the outcome, error behavior, and the consequences of modifying the default branch. Given that this is a branch-history mutation, this gap matters.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the single change_id parameter. It does so by identifying the resource as an approved, conflict-free Change Request, implying change_id is that Change Request's identifier. Yet it never explicitly says where the ID comes from or what format it has, so some inference from sibling tools like list_changes is still required.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Merge') and a specific resource ('Change Request') and states the exact integration target ('the project's default branch'). This clearly distinguishes merge_change from sibling tools like approve_change, apply_conflict_resolution, and check_mergeability, which handle earlier stages.
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?
It states necessary preconditions ('approved, conflict-free'), so an agent can infer that this tool should be used after approval and conflict checks. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the selection of the correct sibling to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It correctly indicates this is a read-only operation and introduces the important 'head revision' scope. However, it does not clarify what happens for missing paths, whether the path is absolute or relative, or how 'head revision' is defined in this system.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the operation and the exact scope without repeating the tool name.
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 two-parameter read tool, the description covers the basics and distinguishes the operation context. It does not, however, state what the return value looks like, and given no output schema and several similar read siblings, a bit more context would make the tool unambiguous.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly maps 'file' to path and 'Change Request' to change_id, which gives basic meaning. But it does not explain accepted path formats, change ID format, or the relationship between the path and the Change Request's fileset.
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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read a file' in the context of a 'Change Request head revision'. This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from the siblings read_file and read_project_file, which operate on other scopes.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool: when the agent needs the version of a file at a Change Request's head revision. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over read_file or read_project_file, and it gives no exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a read-only intent and the HEAD snapshot context, but does not describe recursive behavior, hidden file inclusion, or any restrictions. This is adequate but not deeply transparent for a no-annotation tool.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every piece—action, resource, optional path, HEAD—is meaningful and necessary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides the core operation and the HEAD context, which is important for a list operation. The output schema likely covers the return structure, so little is missing. The only gaps are small ambiguities around recursion and file-type inclusion, but these do not prevent correct invocation.
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?
The description explains 'subpath' as an optional scope restriction and implies project_id as the target project identifier. With schema description coverage at 0%, this only partially compensates—project_id remains an opaque identifier, and the subpath format is not specified beyond 'optionally under a subpath'.
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?
The description specifically states the verb-resource relationship: 'List files within a project' with an optional 'subpath' and at 'HEAD'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_projects and search_files by naming the exact operation and scope.
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?
The context is clear: use this tool when you want a listing of files in a project, possibly under a subpath, at HEAD. However, it never explicitly mentions alternatives or when not to use this tool over search_files or read_file, leaving the routing decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description is the only source of behavioral disclosure. It does convey the primary side effect: creating a new, independently reviewable Change Request linked to the original conflict. However, it does not disclose whether the original change request is modified, finalized, or left untouched, nor does it describe the relationship between the new CR and the original beyond being linked.
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, both relevant and front-loaded. The first states the action, mechanism, and prerequisite; the second clarifies the key outcome. No repetition of schema fields or other filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough to call it: what to pass, where the commits live, and what the result is. The main omission is how the original conflict's state is affected and whether the returned information is a new change ID or some other confirmation, but the overall context is still reasonable.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the semantic weight. It clarifies the meaning of resolver_workspace_id ('separate resolver workspace'), implicitly ties change_id to the original conflicted Change Request, and leaves rationale quite generic. Parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description does not fill in all details for an agent about what to pass as rationale or how to locate the original change from change_id.
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?
The description states a specific action ('Propose a resolution'), names the target resource ('conflicted Change Request'), and explains the mechanism ('using commits already made in a separate resolver workspace'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling apply_conflict_resolution by explicitly noting it 'creates a new, independently reviewable Change Request linked to the original conflict.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description establishes a clear usage context: this tool is for when commits have already been made in a separate resolver workspace. The mention of 'separate resolver workspace' implies preparation steps and clarifies that resolution is proposed rather than directly applied. It does not explicitly contrast with apply_conflict_resolution, but the intent is fairly evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by declaring 'never rewrites history' and 'creating a new forward commit that restores the prior state'. It does not detail permission requirements or conflict behavior, but the key mutation semantics are transparent.
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?
One well-structured sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the safety property is included in the same sentence, and nothing irrelevant is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main call context: target commit, branch scope, operation type, and safety guarantee. It does not describe the return value or behavior when the commit is not mergable, but these are secondary for prompting an agent to make the initial call.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives context for the commit_sha and project_id by referring to a 'previously merged commit' and 'project's default branch', but it does not explicitly explain the rationale parameter or specify input formats such as full SHA vs short SHA.
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?
The description starts with a specific verb and object, 'Roll back a previously merged commit', and distinguishes the behavior from history-rewriting operations by explicitly stating it creates a new forward commit. This is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like rebase_change or merge_change.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly establishes when to use the tool: only for previously merged commits on the project's default branch. It does not name explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the stated preconditions provide enough guidance for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

DPR-Git-Backed-MCP-Collaboration-Server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

[![DPR-Git-Backed-MCP-Collaboration-Server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Janani879/DPR-Git-Backed-MCP-Collaboration-Server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Janani879/DPR-Git-Backed-MCP-Collaboration-Server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![DPR-Git-Backed-MCP-Collaboration-Server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Janani879/DPR-Git-Backed-MCP-Collaboration-Server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Janani879/DPR-Git-Backed-MCP-Collaboration-Server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Janani879/DPR-Git-Backed-MCP-Collaboration-Server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server