Audit a git diff against 24 rules and receive a structured report, helping identify issues before merging.
对 git diff 运行全量审计（24 条规则），返回结构化审计报告。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| diff | No | git diff 范围（如 HEAD~1..HEAD）。默认 HEAD~1..HEAD | HEAD~1..HEAD |
| task | No | 任务描述（用于 A3 不改越界检查） | |
| silent | No | 沉默模式：跳过日志依赖规则，走 diff 启发式回退 | |
| strict | No | 严格模式：无日志时 A7/A8 返回 FAIL 而非 WARN |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'returns a structured audit report' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., read-only vs. mutating), any prerequisites, or whether it modifies state. For an audit tool, safety implications are critical and unstated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and scope. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It fails to explain the return structure of the audit report, when to use it vs. siblings, or any behavioral side effects. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (all 4 parameters documented). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, but with full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action (run full audit), a clear resource (git diff), and a concrete scope (24 rules). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling audit tools by focusing on git diff.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for git diff audits but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over audit_file, audit_data_change, or audit_trail. No alternatives or conditions are mentioned, leaving selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.