Summarize a GitHub pull request diff by listing changed files, additions, deletions, and a short overview to quickly assess code changes.
Summarize a pull request diff: files changed, additions, deletions, and a short overview.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | ||
| owner | Yes | ||
| number | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result includes files changed, additions, deletions, and an overview, but it does not clarify pagination, rate limits, or the exact shape of the overview.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and the main output fields with no wasted words.
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?
For a read-only summary tool with no output schema, the description gives a useful high-level view of the return contents. However, with 0% parameter coverage, it leaves the meaning and expected values of owner/repo/number unexplained.
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 0%, so none of the three parameters (owner, repo, number) are documented in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining what these parameters represent or their expected formats.
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 verb and resource: 'Summarize a pull request diff', and names the components included in the summary. It clearly distinguishes this from listing pull requests, though it does not explicitly name alternatives in text.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_list_pull_requests or other GitHub tools. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.