GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_commit_compare

Read-only

Compare two commits in a GitFlic project to inspect changes between source and target revisions.

Instructions

Compare two commits.

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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "source": "<source>",
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "gitflic_commit_compare"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`raw`	No	Return the full, un-slimmed GitFlic response for THIS call (no token compression). Use when the default slim view dropped a field you need.
`fields`	No	Return only these top-level fields (plus id keys), narrowing the response further.
`source`	Yes
`target`	Yes
`project`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations, such as what comparison output is returned or whether authentication is required.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but its extreme brevity leaves important details unstated. It is concise at the cost of clarity rather than being well-structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a comparison tool with five parameters, 40% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description omits the return format, commit reference semantics, and the role of the project parameter. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently without inspecting the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 40%; only raw and fields are described. The description does not explain the source, target, or project parameters, nor does it state what commit reference formats are accepted (SHA, branch, tag). It hints that two commits are involved but does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Compare two commits." It is distinguishable from sibling tools like gitflic_commit_get and gitflic_commit_list, though it does not clarify what kind of comparison is produced (diff, patch, stats).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus gitflic_commit_get, gitflic_commit_files, or gitflic_commit_list. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server