Skip to main content
Glama
ravenroot-ai

Ravenroot Second Brain MCP

Official
by ravenroot-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_pr_impact

Analyze a pull request's knowledge-graph impact: see changed files, affected communities, and touched nodes to assess merge risk or overlap with current work.

Instructions

Get detailed graph impact for a specific PR: which files it changes, which knowledge-graph communities are affected, and how many nodes are touched. Use this to assess merge risk or check for overlap with your current work.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoNoGitHub repo (owner/repo). Defaults to current repo.
pr_numberYesPR number to analyse
project_pathNoAbsolute path to a project directory containing graphify-out/graph.json. Optional — defaults to the graph this server was started with.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the tool's function but does not disclose side effects, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. More behavioral context needed.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with key information. No wasted words, efficient and clear.

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?

Given no output schema and 3 parameters, description covers main output aspects (files, communities, nodes). Could benefit from more detail on return format, but sufficient for core purpose.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description does not add extra meaning to parameters beyond what schema already provides. No additional detail on defaults or usage.

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 states the tool gets detailed graph impact for a specific PR, listing what it provides (files changed, communities affected, nodes touched). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on PR impact rather than general graph queries.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this to assess merge risk or check for overlap with your current work,' giving clear context. Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but siblings provide alternatives.

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