Returns the recorded before/after unified diff for one operation, with per-path changes and binary flags but no full file bodies.
Show the recorded before/after unified diff for one operation.
Read-only. Returns one entry per affected path with a textual unified
diff, or is_binary true for content that has no textual diff. Never
returns whole file bodies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real value on top: one entry per affected path, a textual unified diff, an is_binary flag for non-textual content, and the guarantee that whole file bodies are never returned. Only error behavior for an unknown operation_id is unstated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded first sentence followed by return-shape details, with zero filler. The second paragraph is somewhat terse and line-broken, but every clause carries information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read-only tool this is nearly complete: the return shape, per-path granularity, binary handling, and body-exclusion guarantee are all stated. The only missing piece is how to obtain or validate the operation_id.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% for the single operation_id parameter, and the description only implies it by saying 'for one operation'. It does not say where the identifier comes from (e.g., history_list results) or what format it takes, so the gap is only partly compensated.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Show the recorded before/after unified diff for one operation'), which is clearly distinct from history_list/history_get metadata tools. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the returned artifact (diff) is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent must infer it is used after identifying an operation via history_list, and no guidance is given about when to prefer this over history_get or when a diff is unnecessary. There are no explicit exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.