Skip to main content
Glama

get_change_risk

Evaluate a commit, range, or uncommitted work to detect newly introduced defects, maintainability issues, and performance risks. Provides a health_delta with attribution and confidence for each finding.

Instructions

Review a commit, base..head range, or uncommitted work.

Leads with ``directive`` (what to do) and ``health_delta`` (what this
change newly made worse across defect, maintainability, and performance).
Both sides are analysed from their own content, so a finding present at
head is only reported when the diff explains it; every finding names its
``attribution`` basis and confidence.

Trust ``health_delta.status``: ``partial`` means files were skipped and the
change is not cleared. ``scope`` counts what was actually compared.

``impacted_tests`` keeps measured coverage and inferred candidates distinct.
``prior_fixes`` counts past fixes overlapping this diff. ``change_shape``
ranks the diff's size and spread against recent commits.

Args:
    revspec: Commit or ``base..head`` range. Omit to review uncommitted
        work, or ``HEAD`` when the tree is clean.
    repo: Repository alias in workspace mode; omit for the default.
    extensions: File suffixes to count, e.g. ``[".py", ".ts"]``.
    exclude_patterns: Gitignore-style paths to omit, e.g. ``["tests/"]``.
    baseline: Recent commits sampled for percentile ranking; 0 disables it.
    include: ``"findings"`` for every change finding, ``"diagnostics"`` for
        raw score mechanics, ``"scales"`` for units. All identical on
        repeat, so ask once.
    finding_id: Expand one ``health_delta`` finding by its id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoNo
includeNo
revspecNo
baselineNo
extensionsNo
finding_idNo
exclude_patternsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Install Server

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds richly. It explains the comparison logic (findings reported only when the diff explains them), the meaning of health_delta.status=partial, scope counting, impacted_tests separation, prior_fixes semantics, and the idempotent include behavior. This is far beyond minimum disclosure.

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?

The description is long but every section earns its place: a front-loaded purpose statement, behavioral semantics, and then a clean Args list. Formatting is scannable, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given seven optional parameters, an output schema, and complex change-risk semantics, this description covers all invocation aspects, return field meanings, status interpretation, and edge cases like clean trees and skipped files. Nothing essential for correct selection or invocation is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining all seven parameters with concrete examples and behavioral details. revspec, repo, extensions, exclude_patterns, baseline, include, and finding_id each receive meaningful semantics beyond their schema types and defaults.

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 clearly identifies the tool's job: reviewing a commit, base..head range, or uncommitted work, and it details what the output leads with (directive, health_delta). It is specific about the resource and operation, though it never explicitly distinguishes this from the sibling get_risk, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

It gives clear invocation context: how to pass revspec, when to omit it, how to control include modes, and how to expand findings. However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_risk, nor does it state exclusions or when not to use it.

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

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/repowise-dev/repowise'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server