Google Jules MCP

jules_analyze_code

Analyze code changes and diffs in a Jules task to review modifications, with an option to include full source code for comprehensive analysis.

Instructions

Analyze code changes and diff in a Jules task

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": {
      "taskId": "<taskId>"
    },
    "name": "jules_analyze_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`taskId`	Yes	Task ID or URL
`includeSourceCode`	No	Whether to include full source code content

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool analyzes code, but does not indicate whether it is read-only, requires authentication, has side effects, or provides output format details.

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?

A single sentence effectively communicates the tool's purpose. It is concise and front-loaded, though slightly more context about behavior could improve without harming conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema, but the description lacks details on return values, what 'analyze' produces, and how it differs from task retrieval. This leaves the agent partially uninformed.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting baseline adequacy.

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 states 'Analyze code changes and diff in a Jules task', which clearly identifies the action (analyze) and resource (code changes/diff within a task). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jules_get_task, but the exact scope of 'analyze' could be more specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., jules_get_task for general task info). The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server