Cachly — AI Cognitive Brain

sync_file_changes

Associate recent file changes with brain knowledge after commits. Record changes and retrieve relevant lessons using git diff data.

Instructions

Associate recent file changes with brain knowledge. Pass a list of changed file paths (from git diff --stat). Returns lessons relevant to those files, and records the file changes in session history. Call this after commits so the brain tracks what changed and why.

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": {
      "instance_id": "<instance_id>",
      "changed_files": "<changed_files>"
    },
    "name": "sync_file_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`commit_msg`	No	Commit message (optional)
`instance_id`	Yes	UUID of the cache instance
`changed_files`	Yes	List of changed file paths
`git_diff_stat`	No	Output of `git diff --stat` (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Apr 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, description mentions returning lessons and recording in session history, but no disclosure of side effects, idempotency, or errors.

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?

Three concise sentences with front-loaded purpose and immediate usage context, no wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Describes inputs, output (lessons), and when to call, but lacks details on error handling, output structure, or prerequisites. Adequate for moderate complexity.

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?

Schema coverage 100% means description adds limited value beyond schema; it provides source hint for changed_files but no extra meaning for required fields.

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?

Clearly states it associates file changes with brain knowledge and returns relevant lessons. Specific verb+resource, distinguishes from siblings like brain_diff.

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?

Gives context 'Call this after commits' but does not explicitly list when to avoid or alternatives among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server