github_pr_diff_summarySummarize a pull request's changed files and diff stats without exposing full patches, giving a quick overview of scope and impact.
Summarize a PR's changed files and diff stats without full patches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | ||
| owner | Yes | ||
| pull_number | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions 'without full patches' but does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or that the tool only returns metadata and not file contents. The behavior is partially transparent but incomplete.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the main action. However, it lacks a period at the end, which is minor. It earns high marks for brevity but could add a second sentence for usage guidance.
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?
The output schema exists but its content is not shown, so the description must explain what the tool returns, but it only says 'summary' without specifying the format. Given that parameters are undocumented and no annotations exist, the description is insufficient for reliable invocation, especially for an API-specific tool.
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 0% and the description provides no details about the parameters owner, repo, or pull_number beyond their names. The input schema only gives types and requiredness, with no descriptions, so an agent must guess what values are valid (e.g., pull_number is an integer but no range or format is given).
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 the function: summarizing a PR's changed files and diff stats without full patches. It distinguishes itself from tools that might fetch full diffs or list issues, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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?
The description implies when to use it: when you need a summary rather than full patches. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like github_list_issues or other code tools, so the usage context is inferred rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.