Retrieve SVN working copy information and detect mixed-revision states.
Run svn info and detect mixed-revision working-copy state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | Absolute working directory. If omitted, absolute paths identify their SVN working copy; relative paths require explicit cwd. | |
| paths | No | Optional paths relative to cwd or absolute paths inside one SVN working copy. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It adds value by mentioning mixed-revision detection beyond standard 'svn info'. However, it omits details about side effects, permissions, or output format.
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?
Single sentence of 10 words, no waste. Front-loaded with action and key feature.
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?
Adequate for a simple tool with well-documented schema parameters, but lacks return value description, error conditions, and when mixed-revision detection triggers.
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 description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 description clearly states it runs 'svn info' and additionally detects mixed-revision state, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like svn_status or svn_diff by highlighting the mixed-revision detection.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., svn_status, svn_log). The description does not specify prerequisites, context, 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.