Skip to main content
Glama

get_risk

Assesses file risk by combining git churn, bus factor, dependency graph, and security findings. Provides directives for PR changes to prevent breaking code.

Instructions

What history says about touching these files — churn, owners, blast radius.

Fuses git temporal signals (churn percentile, trend, bus factor) with
graph topology (dependents, co-changes, impact surface) and security
findings. Consult before editing 95th+ churn-percentile files. Pass
changed_files for PR mode: the response leads with a directive block
(will_break, missing_cochanges, missing_tests) — read it first.

Args:
    targets: file paths to assess.
    repo: usually omitted.
    changed_files: PR-changed files for blast-radius mode.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoNo
targetsYes
changed_filesNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses that the response includes a directive block (will_break, missing_cochanges, missing_tests) and advises reading it first. With no annotations, this covers main behavioral aspects but omits side effects or auth requirements.

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 a one-line summary, then detailed description and Args. Slightly wordy but efficient overall.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, parameters, and output behavior. The PR mode and directive block are well explained.

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?

The Args section explains each parameter clearly: targets (files to assess), repo (usually omitted), changed_files (for PR mode). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, adding significant meaning.

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 states the tool assesses risk of files using git temporal signals, graph topology, and security findings. It distinguishes from siblings like get_health or get_overview by focusing on risk and churn.

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?

Provides specific guidance to consult the tool before editing 95th+ churn-percentile files and describes PR mode. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives.

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

Install Server

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