Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Copilot Desktop MCP

Copilot Desktop MCP

by avianhermana
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Validate Pending Changes

validate_pending_changes
Read-only

Verify on-disk code is syntactically valid and compiles cleanly without disrupting the running process, so pending changes can be checked safely before deployment.

Instructions

Verify that on-disk code is syntactically valid and compiles cleanly without affecting running process.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "validate_pending_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond that: the check runs 'without affecting running process,' which reassures the agent that verifying in a live environment is side-effect free. It still omits cost/latency and whether validation can fail loudly, but with annotations covering safety this is a solid supplement.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the safety reassurance is attached directly to the verification claim. 'Syntactically valid and compiles cleanly' is slightly overlapping but each clause adds a distinct check, so nothing is wasted.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the essentials: what is validated, on which artifact, and that the running process is untouched. The one gap is scope ambiguity ('pending changes' is never defined as git working-tree changes vs. another staging area), which a slightly longer description could resolve.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and no parameter meaning is missing.

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 gives a specific verb ('Verify') plus the resource ('on-disk code') and the exact criteria checked: syntactic validity and clean compilation. That is enough to separate it from siblings like git_diff or apply_self_update, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the tool name and the phrase 'pending changes' suggest running this before applying edits, but the description never states a when-to-use condition or a when-not-to-use case. No alternative validation path is mentioned, so the agent must infer the workflow position.

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