Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
code-guardian

code-guardian

by LuminariSoftwares
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Compare two scans

diff
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare before and after scan reports by fingerprint to see which issues a change fixed and which it introduced, returning verdicts and deltas without relying on line numbers.

Instructions

What a change fixed and broke, by fingerprint, not line number. Use scan to make the two reports, plan to pick the next fix. Read-only, offline. Returns verdict, deltas, fixed[], new[].

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
afterYesThe report after the change: JSON text or a file path.
beforeYesThe report before the change: JSON text or a file path.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changedv0.3.4
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / after / description
      Previous value: -"the report after the change: JSON text or a file path"New value: +"The report after the change: JSON text or a file path."
    • addedInput schema / properties / after / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "after.json"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / after / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • changedInput schema / properties / before / description
      Previous value: -"the report before the change: JSON text or a file path"New value: +"The report before the change: JSON text or a file path."
    • addedInput schema / properties / before / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "before.json"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / before / minLength
      Added value: +1
  2. Addedv0.3.2

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare read-only, offline, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's 'Read-only, offline' adds little. However, it adds useful behavioral context by explaining fingerprint-based comparison and naming returned fields such as verdict, deltas, fixed[], and new[].

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 compact and front-loaded, beginning with the core comparison behavior before prerequisites and return fields. Every sentence contributes useful information without excess.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With only two required string parameters, full schema coverage, annotations covering safety traits, and no output schema, the description supplies the remaining needed context: what is compared, how reports are produced, and what the output 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for both before and after, including that each can be JSON text or a file path. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 comparison purpose: what a change fixed and broke, using fingerprints rather than line numbers. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by directing report creation to scan and next-fix selection to plan.

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 places diff in a workflow: use scan to produce the reports, diff to compare them, and plan to choose the next fix. It does not explicitly state when not to use diff, but the intended context is clear.

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