Summarizes changed files in a Git diff with per-file statistics, comparing against a base revision or staged changes for a compact read-only overview of large diffs.
Summarise changes per file (read-only), compact for large diffs. base compares with a revision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| base | No | ||
| repo | No | . | |
| staged | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose read-only behavior, which is useful, but says nothing about what staged does, what repo defaults to, or how the per-file summary is shaped.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with no padding. The phrasing 'base compares with a revision' is slightly awkward but efficient overall.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, leaving 'repo' and 'staged' entirely unexplained is a significant gap for a tool with three parameters.
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 compensate. It only clarifies 'base' as a comparison revision; 'repo' and 'staged' remain completely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 and resource ('Summarise changes per file') and scopes it with 'compact for large diffs', which distinguishes it from the fuller git_diff sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the trade-off.
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?
'compact for large diffs' implies when to prefer this over git_diff, but the guidance is indirect. There are no explicit exclusions or conditions for choosing between git_diff_stat, git_diff, and git_show.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.