@growi/mcp-server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

getRevisionDiffs

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compute unified diffs for up to 20 revision pairs in GROWI, handling authorization and structural validation per pair without failing the whole batch.

Instructions

Compute unified diffs for a batch of revision pairs (up to 20) in GROWI. Authorization is checked independently per pair: inaccessible pairs return status "forbidden" and structurally invalid pairs return status "invalid" without failing the whole batch

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": {
      "pairs": "<pairs>"
    },
    "name": "getRevisionDiffs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pairs`	Yes	Revision pairs to compute diffs for (up to 20 pairs)
`appName`	No	GROWI app name to operate on (optional, uses default if not specified)
`contextLines`	No	Number of context lines in the unified diff output (0-20, default 3, optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.7.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: batch size limit, independent authorization, specific error statuses ('forbidden', 'invalid'), and partial failure semantics. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured sentences. The first states the core function with limit, the second explains error handling. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Missing description of the output format (e.g., unified diff text or structure). With no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, but output details are omitted.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the batch behavior and error handling for the pairs parameter, which is not fully captured by the schema alone.

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?

Clearly states the action ('compute unified diffs'), resource ('revision pairs'), batch size limit (up to 20), and system (GROWI). Distinguishes from siblings like getRevision and listRevisions.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on batch behavior: independent authorization per pair and specific error statuses without failing the whole batch. Lacks explicit when-not or alternatives, but the error handling description is valuable for selecting this tool.

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