Skip to main content
Glama
Krv-Labs

topos-mcp

by Krv-Labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

topos_assess_worktree_change

Read-onlyIdempotent

Assess an in-place edit against a git revision by comparing the git baseline to the current working-tree file, returning structural quality findings and a target verdict.

Instructions

Assess an in-place edit against a git revision — the common refactor loop. Stateless: the baseline is read from git (git show <baseline_ref>:<path>, default HEAD) and compared to the current working-tree file. No prior call required. For untracked/new files or an uncommitted pre-edit baseline, use topos_begin_refactor + topos_assess_snapshot. Do not call if you have not edited the file. A no-change result on a passing file has no next_tool.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
allowNoOne-off acknowledged dangerous-call patterns.
filepathYesEdited file path.
preferencesNoOptional generator ranking.
baseline_refNoGit baseline ref.HEAD
gitnexus_dirNo
include_security_findingsNoInclude SECURE findings.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • changedInput schema / $defs / GeneratorInput / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "simple",
-  "composable",
-  "secure"
-]New value: +[
+  "simple",
+  "composable",
+  "secure",
+  "navigable"
+]
    • changedInput schema / $defs / LatticeElement / description
      Previous value: -"The 8 elements of the free Heyting algebra H(G_qual) on the three\ngenerators SIMPLE, COMPOSABLE, SECURE, mirroring `EvaluationValue` on\nthe MCP wire."New value: +"The 16 elements of the free Heyting algebra H(G_qual) on the four\ngenerators SIMPLE, COMPOSABLE, SECURE, NAVIGABLE, mirroring\n`EvaluationValue` on the MCP wire.\n\nNote for clients pinned to the pre-v0.5.0 shape: `IDEAL` now requires\nall four pillars. The verdict that used to be `IDEAL` — the top of the\nthree-generator algebra — serializes as `SIMPLE_COMPOSABLE_SECURE`.\nVariants are declared in **bitmask order**, matching\n`EvaluationValue::ALL`, so the two enums convert by position. Serde\nkeys on variant names, so this ordering is an implementation detail\nand not part of the wire contract."
    • changedInput schema / $defs / LatticeElement / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "SLOP",
-  "SIMPLE",
-  "COMPOSABLE",
-  "SECURE",
-  "SIMPLE_COMPOSABLE",
-  "SIMPLE_SECURE",
-  "COMPOSABLE_SECURE",
-  "IDEAL"
-]New value: +[
+  "SLOP",
+  "SIMPLE",
+  "COMPOSABLE",
+  "SIMPLE_COMPOSABLE",
+  "SECURE",
+  "SIMPLE_SECURE",
+  "COMPOSABLE_SECURE",
+  "SIMPLE_COMPOSABLE_SECURE",
+  "NAVIGABLE",
+  "SIMPLE_NAVIGABLE",
+  "COMPOSABLE_NAVIGABLE",
+  "SIMPLE_COMPOSABLE_NAVIGABLE",
+  "SECURE_NAVIGABLE",
+  "SIMPLE_SECURE_NAVIGABLE",
+  "COMPOSABLE_SECURE_NAVIGABLE",
+  "IDEAL"
+]
    • changedInput schema / $defs / UserPreferencesInput / description
      Previous value: -"Strict ranking over simple, composable, and secure."New value: +"Strict ranking over simple, composable, secure, and navigable."
    • changedInput schema / $defs / UserPreferencesInput / properties / ranking / description
      Previous value: -"Permutation of simple/composable/secure, best first."New value: +"Permutation of simple/composable/secure/navigable, best first."
  2. Addedv0.4.0
  3. Removedv0.4.0-rc
  4. First observedv0.3.6

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the tool is stateless, the baseline is read via git show, no prior call is required, and a no-change result on a passing file yields no next_tool. It stops short of describing the result payload more broadly.

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?

Short, front-loaded, and every sentence carries information: scope first, then statelessness/baseline mechanics, then the alternative routing, then the negative guard. No 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 6-parameter assessment tool with no output schema, the description covers when to use it, its stateless baseline mechanism, and one notable result behavior (missing next_tool). It leaves the remaining parameters and the general return shape unaddressed, but nothing critical is missing for a correct call.

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 coverage is 83%, so baseline is 3, and the description meaningfully augments it by spelling out how baseline_ref is used (git show <baseline_ref>:<path>, default HEAD). It does not clarify the other parameters (allow, preferences, include_security_findings), which remain schema-only.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Assess an in-place edit against a git revision') plus the intended context ('the common refactor loop'). It also names sibling tools it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from topos_assess_snapshot and topos_begin_refactor without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly names alternatives and the condition that selects them: untracked/new files or a pre-edit uncommitted baseline route to topos_begin_refactor + topos_assess_snapshot. It also states a clear negative condition ('Do not call if you have not edited the file').

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools