Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Copilot Counterpart

Copilot Counterpart

by dstkwll
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

copilot_changes

Show the unified diff of edits a job staged in granted writable files, including the changeSetHash needed to apply them, so you can review untrusted delegate output before it reaches disk.

Instructions

Show the unified diff of edits a job staged in its granted writable files, with a changeSetHash to pass to copilot_apply. Review it before applying; staged content is untrusted delegate output.

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": {
      "jobId": "<jobId>"
    },
    "name": "copilot_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jobIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavior: the output is a diff, the content is untrusted delegate output, and a changeSetHash is produced for copilot_apply. It omits whether this is strictly read-only and how large diffs or missing staged changes are handled.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the core action and the review-before-apply warning front-loaded. No redundant wording.

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 no output schema, the description usefully explains that the return includes a unified diff and a changeSetHash. The untrusted-content caveat is a valuable addition. Only the jobId sourcing and edge cases like empty change sets are left uncovered.

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 coverage is 0% and the single jobId property has no description beyond a UUID format/pattern. The description never explains what a jobId is or where the agent obtains one, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Show the unified diff of edits a job staged in its granted writable files.' It also distinguishes this tool from copilot_apply by framing the output as a changeSetHash handed to that sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly directs the agent to 'Review it before applying,' which establishes the review-then-apply sequence, and it identifies copilot_apply as the follow-on tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as after a change set is already applied.

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