Skip to main content
Glama

Show the change

ecu_change_diff
Read-onlyIdempotent

Shows every modification the open change has made, computed from the files, so you can review exactly what changed before applying or undoing edits.

Instructions

Everything the open change has modified so far, computed from the files.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ecu_change_diff"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail — that the result is 'computed from the files' rather than read from a stored change record — but says nothing about output shape, size, or whether uncommitted/untracked files appear.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope ('the open change') precedes the qualifier ('computed from the files'). It is arguably slightly too terse for a tool whose return value is undocumented.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it only says 'everything ... modified' without describing diff format, granularity, or size. Adequate to call correctly, but thin for interpreting the result.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent parameter talk, keeping focus on the single implicit subject, the open change.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair ('Everything the open change has modified') and ties it to the 'open change' concept, which separates it from mutating siblings like ecu_change_discard and ecu_change_finish. It does not name an alternative explicitly, but the read-only diff framing is distinctive enough for an agent to pick it out.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'the open change' signals a prerequisite that an open change must exist, and the 'so far' wording hints it is meant for in-progress review. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to sibling tools such as ecu_validate or ecu_overview for other views.

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