Search commit history for commits whose message matches a search term. Returns matching commits with SHA, author, date, and message.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max commits to return. Default 20. | |
| searchTerm | No | Text to search for in commit messages. | |
| workingDirectory | No | Git repo path. Default current directory. | . |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it searches commit messages and returns SHA, author, date, and message, but omits details like case sensitivity, sorting, or performance implications.
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 two short sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and result.
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?
Given no output schema, the description helpfully lists return fields. However, it lacks context on ordering, search scope (e.g., all branches), and any security or directory requirements.
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 coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions are adequate. The tool description adds no extra context beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool searches commit history by message and returns specific fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'find_changes' or 'show_history', though the scope is implied.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'show_history' or 'find_changes'. 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Even similar tools like 'undo_changes' and 'restore_file' differ in scope (all vs single file), and 'find_changes' vs 'show_change' list files vs show diffs. No two tools overlap ambiguously.
All tool names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern. While verbs are not perfectly uniform (e.g., 'get_vault_status' vs 'show_history'), the naming is consistent and predictable, with no mixed camelCase or confusing conventions.
22 tools is on the higher side but appropriate for a comprehensive Git server covering branch management, commits, pushes, credentials, diagnostics, and more. The number is manageable and each tool serves a distinct function.
The tool set covers essential operations but has notable gaps: there's no branch listing, pull/merge, or stash functionality. Agents may encounter dead ends when needing these operations, though core workflows like commit and push are well supported.