Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Code Reader MCP Server

Code Reader MCP Server

by tix-ruthsan-r
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

get_api_changes

Compare two branches or commits for a service to detect new or modified API endpoints. Use it to identify API changes for testing.

Instructions

Get API changes between two branches or commits for a service. Detects new/modified API endpoints.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_api_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baseBranchNoBase branch to compare against (default: main)
headBranchNoHead branch or commit to compare
serviceNameYesName of the service to check for API changes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only partially meets it: 'Detects new/modified API endpoints' hints at the result category, but says nothing about required auth, whether it is read-only, behavior when branches are identical, or how far back the diff reaches.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the primary action front-loaded before the detection detail. Every clause carries information.

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 read-only diff tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it conveys what is compared and what is detected. It omits output shape (how changes are listed), permission requirements, and error behavior on unknown services.

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 each parameter including the default for baseBranch is already documented. The description adds no extra syntax, commit-format, or branch-resolution detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 and resource (get API changes) and scopes it to a service, plus names the comparison targets. It does not distinguish itself from the overlapping sibling compare_branches, so an agent cannot tell the two apart without opening both schemas.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The overlap with sibling compare_branches (branch/commit comparison) is left entirely unaddressed, forcing the agent to infer which tool applies from names alone.

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