Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
KiCad MCP Pro

KiCad MCP Pro

by Valxyria
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

vcs_diff_with_checkpoint

Compare the current KiCad project against a checkpoint commit to review all design changes.

Instructions

Show the current project diff versus a checkpoint commit.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "commit_hash": "<commit_hash>"
    },
    "name": "vcs_diff_with_checkpoint"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commit_hashYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.3.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations are empty, so the description is the sole source of behavioral info. 'Show' implies a read-only operation, which is helpful, but the description does not explicitly state that it's non-destructive or mention behaviors like handling of uncommitted changes or the requirement for an existing project/checkpoint. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the function name.

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, clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, every word earned its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core function and parameter intent. But without annotations, it lacks explicit mention of being read-only and any prerequisites or error conditions. An output schema exists (not shown) to explain return values, but the description could still state what a diff includes.

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 provides only the parameter name and type (string) with no description (0% coverage). The description adds context that the commit_hash refers to a checkpoint commit, which clarifies the parameter's meaning. However, it doesn't explain how to obtain a valid hash or the exact format expected.

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 'Show' and identifies the resource ('diff versus a checkpoint commit'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling VCS tools like vcs_restore_checkpoint (a write/restore operation) and vcs_list_checkpoints (a listing operation).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that vcs_list_checkpoints can be used to find valid commit hashes, nor does it state any prerequisites (e.g., initialized VCS). The agent is left to infer usage from the name.

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