ArchLog MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

archlog_start_analysis

Start an asynchronous analysis of code changes between two Git refs to generate architecture-guided release notes. Returns a job ID for polling status.

Instructions

Start an asynchronous architecture-guided release-note analysis and return immediately with a persistent job ID. Poll with archlog_get_status; do not wait in this call.

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": {
      "repo_url": "<repo_url>",
      "base_ref": "<base_ref>",
      "head_ref": "<head_ref>"
    },
    "name": "archlog_start_analysis"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`base_ref`	Yes
`head_ref`	Yes
`repo_url`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	No
`output_language`	No	zh

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately conveys that the call is asynchronous and returns immediately, implying no blocking. It does not mention authorization or side effects, but for a simple async initiation, this is adequate.

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 concise sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and key behavior (async, job ID), second gives critical usage instruction.

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?

The description covers the overall flow but lacks parameter details. Since an output schema exists, return values are covered. However, given the tool has 5 parameters with zero schema description, the description should offer some context on what they do.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no information about any of the 5 parameters (repo_url, base_ref, head_ref, idempotency_key, output_language). The description adds no value beyond the schema's basic field names.

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 the tool starts an asynchronous analysis and returns a job ID. It uses specific verb 'Start' and resource 'architecture-guided release-note analysis', distinguishing it from sibling tools like archlog_check_environment and archlog_validate_request.

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?

The description explicitly advises to poll with archlog_get_status and not wait, providing clear usage guidance. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the sibling tools are sufficiently different.

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

Deploy Server