Skip to main content
Glama
mariusei

Scantool - File Scanner MCP

by mariusei
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Overlap

overlap

Analyzes multiple branches against one base to reveal overlapping changes, shared commits, and merge-order hints, helping you detect conflicts and decide merge sequence.

Instructions

N branches against one base, each at its own merge-base: structures touched by 2+ branches (marked base(~/+/-) when the base itself changed them since the branches forked), new names introduced independently by 2+ branches, commits two branches share (a stack: overlap between them is expected; the residual beyond their shared commits is what stays), and per branch whether it is already in the base and by which criterion (ancestor / patch-equivalent / tree-equal; patch-equivalence proves it can be deleted, not that its content is in the current tree). Ends with a merge-order hint, not a verdict. The first line names the parts (branches, history, shared, colliding, order) with line counts; --part ID prints one part alone. Answers: do branches conflict or change the same functions; in which order to merge several branches; which commits two pull requests share. In your shell: sct overlap <base> <branch>... (if sct is not on PATH, "/app/.venv/bin/python" -m scantool.cli replaces sct).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baseYes
kindNo
partNo
pathNo
repoNo
branchesYes
output_formatNotree

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.28.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / part
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv0.26.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and does well: it explains output parts, base(~/+/-) markers, the patch-equivalence caveat, and that the result is a hint rather than a verdict. It does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, but the analytical framing implies no mutation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but dense, with no filler. The most important framing ('N branches against one base, each at its own merge-base') is front-loaded, and each sentence contributes semantic detail, caveats, or invocation instructions. The inline Python fallback is extra but useful.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it names the output parts, explains markers and caveats, lists the questions it answers, and gives an invocation. The main gaps are the unexplained optional schema fields and the lack of a precise output shape beyond the first-line summary.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully clarifies the required base and branches parameters via the `sct overlap <base> <branch>...` syntax and maps `--part ID` to the part parameter. However, it leaves `kind`, `path`, `repo`, and `output_format` unexplained, which is a notable gap given the schema offers no descriptions.

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 defines what the tool does: it compares N branches against one base at each branch's own merge-base and reports structures touched by 2+ branches, shared commits, base containment, and a merge-order hint. This distinguishes it from single-branch diff or divergence siblings by emphasizing multi-branch conflict and ordering questions.

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 states concrete use cases: determining branch conflicts, deciding merge order, and identifying commits shared by pull requests. It also warns that the output is 'a merge-order hint, not a verdict.' It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or say when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full guidance.

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