Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Renyi

Renyi

Official
by renyi-lang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

diff

Compare a project against a saved map file or git revision to see changed definitions, their reach, and the required version bump.

Instructions

What changed in the served project since a base: a saved map (a file renyi index --json or project_map with json wrote) or a git revision such as HEAD or v1.2.0. One entry per changed definition with the changes (added, removed, renamed, signature, visibility, effects, failures, body), the definitions each change reaches, and the version bump the changes force (the same as renyi index --diff).

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": {
      "base": "<base>"
    },
    "name": "diff"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baseYesa saved map file under the served directory, or a git revision
jsonNotrue for the JSON shape; the text form by default

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so well: it discloses the return shape (one entry per changed definition, the change categories, the definitions each change reaches, the forced version bump) and notes equivalence to `renyi index --diff`. It does not mention auth, permissions, or rate limits, but for a read-style diff that is a minor gap.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and every subsequent clause adds information rather than filler. It is dense and heavily nested with parentheses, which costs some readability, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values, and it does so thoroughly (changed definitions, change categories, reached definitions, version bump). An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies what a 'saved map' is (output of `renyi index --json` or project_map with `json`) and gives concrete git revision examples (HEAD, v1.2.0) beyond the schema's generic wording.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it computes what changed in the served project since a base, and it enumerates the exact output (one entry per changed definition, the changes, reached definitions, forced version bump). There is no ambiguity about what the tool produces versus a sibling like project_map or definition.

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?

It explains how to supply the base (saved map file or git revision) but never states when to reach for diff versus alternatives such as check, project_map, or definition. Usage is implied by the tool's obvious diff semantics rather than stated.

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