Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Gitea: Get pr diff

gitea_get_pr_diff
Read-only

Retrieve the unified diff for a Gitea pull request by specifying the site, owner, repository, and PR number. Use it to review exact code changes before merge.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Get the unified diff of a pull request.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "pr_number": "<pr_number>"
    },
    "name": "gitea_get_pr_diff"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYes
siteYes
ownerYes
pr_numberYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0
  2. Removedv3.13.1
  3. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, and the description adds the meaningful detail that the payload is a unified-format diff, implying raw patch text as the return. However, it says nothing about large-diff truncation, line limits, or binary files, which matter for a diff endpoint.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words and the '[UNIFIED]' tag signals output format up front. It is efficient but so terse that it omits information the agent needs.

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 tool with four required, fully undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description does not compensate—no parameter meaning, no return-shape detail, no caveats about diff size. It covers only the bare purpose.

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 all four required parameters (site, owner, repo, pr_number) are undocumented in the schema and the description adds no meaning beyond their names. The ambiguous 'site' parameter in particular is left for the agent to guess.

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 and resource ('Get the unified diff of a pull request'), making the operation unambiguous. It distinguishes itself reasonably from siblings like gitea_list_pr_files or gitea_get_pull_request by naming the diff output, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 when-to-use guidance or exclusions are given; the agent must infer that this is the right call for diff content versus gitea_list_pr_files or gitea_compare. Usage is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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