HAOps MCP Server

haops_get_branch_diff

Compare two Git branches to see commits ahead and behind, changed files, diff content, and detect conflicts before creating a merge request.

Instructions

Compare two branches in a HAOps Git repository. Returns commits ahead/behind, changed files with stats, diff content, and conflict detection. Use before creating an MR to preview changes.

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": {
      "projectSlug": "<projectSlug>",
      "sourceBranch": "<sourceBranch>",
      "targetBranch": "<targetBranch>"
    },
    "name": "haops_get_branch_diff"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`projectSlug`	Yes	The project slug (URL identifier)
`sourceBranch`	Yes	Source branch
`targetBranch`	Yes	Target branch
`repositoryName`	No	Repository name for multi-repo projects (default: first/main repo)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.8.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output (commits ahead/behind, etc.) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or safe. However, the verb 'Compare' and the nature of the tool imply no side effects, so the transparency is adequate but could be improved.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, then lists the return items, and ends with a usage recommendation. There is no wasted text.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity. The description lists the main return items but does not mention response format, pagination, or error conditions. However, for a comparative read operation, the description is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'two branches' which maps to sourceBranch and targetBranch, but does not elaborate on projectSlug or repositoryName beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool compares two branches in a HAOps Git repository and returns specific data (commits ahead/behind, changed files, diff content, conflict detection). It uses a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('branches'), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like haops_git_commit_diff or haops_merge_merge_request.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly states 'Use before creating an MR to preview changes,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. While it doesn't list alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, the guidance is sufficient for most use cases.

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

Deploy Server