Skip to main content
Glama

get_diff

Retrieve all changes an agent made since its base commit, including commits, uncommitted edits, and new files, optionally scoped to a path or reduced to a stat-only summary.

Instructions

Everything the agent changed since its base commit: commits + uncommitted edits + new files.

path: limit to one file or directory (relative to the repo root). stat_only: only the per-file summary.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_diff"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
pathNo
max_charsNo
stat_onlyNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully enumerates what the diff contains, but says nothing about permissions, size limits, or what happens when the diff exceeds max_chars (default 80000) — a real behavioral question for a tool that can return very large output.

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 main behavior is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by terse parameter notes with no filler. The telegraphic fragments are efficient, though slightly clipped.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting needn't be described. However, given a required unexplained parameter and no note on truncation behavior under max_chars, the definition is only partly complete for a 4-parameter tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains only `path` and `stat_only`; the required `name` parameter (presumably the agent identity) and `max_chars` are left entirely undefined, which is a substantial gap for a required argument.

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?

"Everything the agent changed since its base commit" gives a specific resource and scope (commits + uncommitted edits + new files), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not name any sibling to distinguish from, but none of the listed siblings appear to overlap in behavior, so the cost is low.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when this is useful (inspecting an agent's changes) and notes path scoping, but never states when to prefer it over other inspection calls or any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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