Inspect changes for a job or working directory in read-only mode to verify diffs without modifying files.
Revisión en solo lectura de los cambios de un job (o de un cwd).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | ||
| focus | No | ||
| job_id | No |
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 behavioral burden. It does disclose the read-only nature ('solo lectura'), which is useful, but says nothing about whether the job must be running, which changes are examined (working tree vs. committed), permissions, or what the review returns.
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?
A single short sentence with the read-only constraint and the two target scopes front-loaded; no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than true economy.
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?
With three undocumented parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many overlapping siblings (diff, report, status, result), the description is too thin. An agent lacks the information needed to pick this tool or to invoke focus correctly.
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 coverage is 0% for all three parameters. The description implicitly maps 'job' to job_id and 'cwd' to cwd, but adds no format or semantics for them, and the 'focus' parameter is entirely undocumented in both the schema and the 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: a read-only review of the changes produced by a job or a cwd. That is clear enough to act on, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as diff, report, or status, so an agent must guess which is the right one for examining changes.
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?
Usage is only implied by the scope 'changes of a job (or a cwd)' – it tells the agent what the tool operates on, not when to prefer it over diff, report, or status. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection guidance are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.