Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Code Reader MCP Server

Code Reader MCP Server

by tix-ruthsan-r
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

compare_branches

Compare two branches for a service and get a summary of all changes, including API-related files.

Instructions

Compare two branches and get a summary of all changes including API-related files

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": {
      "serviceName": "<serviceName>",
      "headBranch": "<headBranch>"
    },
    "name": "compare_branches"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baseBranchNoBase branch (default: main)
headBranchYesHead branch to compare
serviceNameYesName of the service

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at the return content (a summary of changes, with emphasis on API-related files) but says nothing about permissions, whether branches must exist, how large diffs are handled, or whether the comparison is local or remote.

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 compact sentence with the verb and outcome front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than padded, but as structure it is efficient.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable: it conveys the action and rough result but omits the base-vs-head semantics, output structure, and any relationship to the similar API-change siblings.

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%, so baseBranch, headBranch, and serviceName are already documented with their defaults and roles. The description only confirms that two branches are involved and adds no directionality or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (compare) and resource (two branches) plus the output shape (summary of all changes including API-related files). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_api_changes, which sounds like an overlapping capability.

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 on when to use this versus get_api_changes, get_recent_commits, or get_pull_requests, and no preconditions such as needing an existing service or fetched branches. The agent is left to infer the routing entirely.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools