get_task_diffRetrieve unified diffs of files changed by a task. For large diffs, get a file list first, then request one path at a time with offset paging.
Unified diff of the files the task changed (including out-of-scope ones). Large diffs return a file list first; then request one path at a time and page with offset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| taskId | Yes | ||
| maxChars | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a diff read. Beyond annotations, the description discloses two important behaviors an agent cannot infer: out-of-scope files are included, and large diffs degrade into a file-list response requiring per-path, paged follow-ups. It does not explain how to distinguish a file-list response from an actual diff response.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, and the primary output description is front-loaded ahead of the large-diff fallback behavior. Every clause carries information.
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?
No output schema exists and four parameters have 0% schema coverage, so the description is the only source of truth. It covers the big-diff path but leaves maxChars undocumented and does not say how to recognize that the returned payload is a file list rather than a diff, which is the main practical ambiguity.
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 the description must carry the load. It gives semantics for path (one at a time) and offset (paging), and taskId is implied by context, but maxChars is never mentioned or constrained anywhere. Partial compensation for a total coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: a unified diff of the files a task changed, with the notable scope caveat that out-of-scope files are included. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_task_result or get_task_status. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
Gives a concrete escalation workflow: for large diffs you get a file list first, then you must request one path at a time and page with offset. That is real conditional usage guidance. It does not say when to prefer this over get_task_result, so it is not a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.