github_list_commitsFetch recent commits for a GitHub repo and branch. Optionally filter by path to isolate changes to specific files, helping identify when SEO modifications were introduced.
List recent commits of a branch, optionally only those touching a path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| repo | Yes | Repository as 'owner/name', e.g. 'octocat/my-site'. | |
| limit | No | ||
| branch | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are ordered by recency and can be filtered by path, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits beyond the schema, or return shape.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately tells the agent what the tool returns and the key optional scoping. There is no filler or repeated schema information.
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?
For a simple read-only list operation, the description plus annotations are adequate for basic selection and invocation. However, there is no output schema and no description of the returned commit fields, ordering guarantees beyond 'recent', or how limit interacts with pagination, leaving moderate gaps.
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 description coverage is only 25% (only repo is documented). The description mentions branch and path as filtering dimensions but does not explain their value formats, defaults, or relationships. The limit parameter is entirely unaddressed, so the description does not sufficiently compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists recent commits and scopes them by branch and optional path. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like github_commit_files or github_list_dir, though the resource being returned is clearly commits.
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?
The intended context is implied: use it when you need recent commits for a branch, optionally filtered by path. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no note about when the path filter would be preferable to other search tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.