Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
code-lens

code-lens

by j0hanz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Analyze PR Impact

analyze_pr_impact
Read-onlyIdempotent

Assess impact and risk of a pull request using cached diff analysis. Automatically detects repository language for accurate review.

Instructions

Assess impact and risk from cached diff. Prerequisite: generate_diff. Auto-infer repo/language.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "analyze_pr_impact"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
languageNoPrimary language (e.g. TypeScript, Python, JavaScript, Go, Rust, Java). Auto-infer from files.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesWhether the tool completed successfully.
resultNoSuccessful result payload.
errorNoError payload when ok is false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.12.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate safe read operations; description adds that it uses cached diff and auto-infers repo/language, providing useful behavioral context beyond 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 concise sentences: first states purpose and data source, second covers prerequisite and auto-inference. Efficient with no redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Adequate for a tool with output schema and clear annotations. Could elaborate on what the assessment includes, but not necessary given output schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter description; description adds 'Auto-infer repo/language', reinforcing the concept but not significantly new information.

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 'Assess impact and risk from cached diff', specifying verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_diff' (prerequisite) and other analysis tools.

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?

Specifies prerequisite 'generate_diff', guiding the agent on required prior steps. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with alternatives.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools