Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@ola/buzz-mcp

@ola/buzz-mcp

Official
by ola-krutrim
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

buzz_post_diff

Posts a unified code diff to a Buzz channel as a syntax-highlighted rich diff message, optionally as a thread reply.

Instructions

Post a code diff to a channel as a rich diff message (kind 40008) that Buzz clients render with syntax highlighting. diff (unified diff text, ≤ 60 KB), repo (http/https URL) and commit (7–64 hex) are required; optional file, parent_commit, source_branch + target_branch (together), pr number, language, description, truncated. event posts it as a thread reply. Agent mode only for now (kind 40008 isn't on Ekam's wire-sign allowlist).

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": {
      "channel": "<channel>",
      "diff": "<diff>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "commit": "<commit>"
    },
    "name": "buzz_post_diff"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
prNopull request number
diffYesunified diff text (≤ 60 KB)
fileNofile path within the repo
repoYesrepository URL (http/https)
eventNopost as a reply in this message's thread
commitYescommit SHA (7–64 hex)
channelYeschannel name or id
dry_runNopreview only: resolve everything and show the exact event that would be signed (auth tags redacted) — nothing is signed, uploaded or sent
languageNolanguage id for highlighting (e.g. rust)
truncatedNoset true if you cut the diff down to fit
descriptionNoone-line description (≤500 chars)
parent_commitNo
source_branchNo
target_branchNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.36

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the write/retry profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's job is to add operational context — which it does: the 60 KB payload cap and the fact that kind 40008 is not on Ekam's wire-sign allowlist (agent mode only). It does not mention auth requirements, whether posts can be edited/retracted, or failure behavior, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then parameters, then the environment caveat — a sensible order with minimal filler. It is a single dense paragraph packing a long parameter list, which is slightly harder to scan than a structured list.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 14-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, it covers the essentials an agent needs: payload size limit, required fields, the branch-pairing rule, thread-reply routing, and the agent-mode restriction. Remaining details (dry_run, field lengths) are adequately handled by the schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 79%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning. The description still adds genuine constraints beyond the schema: source_branch and target_branch must be supplied together, and 'truncated' should be set true when the diff was cut to fit the 60 KB limit. It omits meaning for file, pr, and dry_run beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb ('Post') and resource ('code diff to a channel as a rich diff message (kind 40008)'), plus the rendering outcome (syntax highlighting). That clearly separates it from buzz_post / buzz_reply, which post ordinary messages.

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?

Implies the selection condition well: use this when the payload is a diff that should render with highlighting, and it notes 'event' turns it into a thread reply (vs. buzz_reply). The 'Agent mode only for now' note is a real usage constraint. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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