Geond Agent Protocol

Explain file change

explain_change

Provide historical context for a file showing changesets, code graph entries, snapshots, and related messages to explain why it changed during code review or bug triage.

Instructions

Purpose: Explain why a file may have changed using stored changesets, code graph entries, snapshots, and related messages. When to use: call during code review, bug triage, or handoff recovery when a file path needs historical context. Inputs: file_path identifies the repo-relative file; limit caps evidence volume; include_narrative adds a deterministic cited summary. Side effects: none beyond database reads. Output: changesets, touched entities, snapshots, related messages, and optional geond.evidence.v1 narrative citations. Failure modes: returns sparse evidence when the file was not indexed or imported.

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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "explain_change"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of evidence rows to include per evidence category.
`file_path`	Yes	Repo-relative path to the file whose history should be explained.
`include_narrative`	No	Whether to include a concise cited narrative summary.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 3, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Side effects: none beyond database reads,' and mentions failure modes, covering key behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (Purpose, When to use, Inputs, Side effects, Output, Failure modes). Every sentence is informative, and there is no redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema (indicated in context signals), the description appropriately omits return value details but covers purpose, usage, inputs, side effects, and failure modes, making it fully contextual.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds context: 'file_path identifies the repo-relative file; limit caps evidence volume; include_narrative adds a deterministic cited summary.' This enriches the schema definitions.

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 clearly states 'Explain why a file may have changed using stored changesets, code graph entries, snapshots, and related messages.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like get_changeset_detail which focuses on a single changeset.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says 'call during code review, bug triage, or handoff recovery when a file path needs historical context.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, and the failure modes section helps avoid misuse.

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