Skip to main content
Glama
mariusei

Scantool - File Scanner MCP

by mariusei
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Scan Diff

scan_diff

Compare git refs structurally: see added, changed, renamed, or removed files and functions, plus candidate dead code, for code review and what-changed analysis.

Instructions

Structural diff between refs. One ref = that ref vs the working tree. Two refs = A...B against their merge-base by default (--no-merge-base compares the tips; a note says which). Per file: + added, ~ changed (signature: old → new; or body: N code / M doc lines), = renamed (paired by identical body; children follow a renamed class), - removed; identical signature deltas in 3+ functions fold into one row; new files as skeletons; a + or ~ function says how many other changed functions call it. The coverage line counts files changed without structural rows and names the reason for each. --review appends candidate dead/orphan/drift the changed files introduced; off by default on both doors. ref vs the working tree, or ref vs ref2; review=True appends the review tail. Use instead of git diff for review and 'what changed' questions. In your shell: sct diff <ref> or sct diff <refA> <refB> (if sct is not on PATH, "/app/.venv/bin/python" -m scantool.cli replaces sct).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refNoHEAD
ref2No
budgetNo
reviewNo
directoryYes
no_merge_baseNo
output_formatNotree

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.26.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / no_merge_base
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / output_format
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "tree",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / ref2
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / review
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.20.1
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  3. First observedv0.19.4

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it is remarkably transparent. It discloses merge-base vs tip comparison, the per-file symbol legend, folding of identical deltas, skeleton files, coverage-line behavior, and the review tail with dead/orphan/drift candidates. It even notes that --review is off by default and that a note indicates which comparison mode was used.

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 dense and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and then providing the output legend and shell usage. It earns its length for a complex tool, but there is some redundancy, such as repeating 'ref vs the working tree, or ref vs ref2' and 'review=True appends the review tail.' It is slightly over-packed but still well structured.

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?

For a complex 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the diff semantics and output rows very well. Yet it omits three parameters, including the only required one, directory, plus budget and output_format, leaving an agent with gaps for a correct invocation. The detail elsewhere makes these omissions conspicuous.

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?

Because schema description coverage is 0%, the description must supply parameter meaning, and it does for ref, ref2, no_merge_base, and review. However, budget, directory (the only required parameter), and output_format are never mentioned, so an agent cannot determine their semantics from either the schema or the description. This is a meaningful gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Structural diff between refs,' naming a specific verb and resource, and then explains one-ref vs two-ref semantics precisely. The detailed output legend makes the purpose unmistakable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, so it misses the full 5, but the purpose is otherwise very clear.

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 says 'Use instead of git diff for review and "what changed" questions,' providing both a use case and an alternative. It also explains when to use one ref vs two refs and how the default merge-base behavior works. It does not enumerate sibling-tool exclusions, but the guidance is strong enough for correct selection.

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