mcp-git-historian

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

File history

file_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

List commits that touched a given file, newest first, including hash, date, author, subject and line changes, while following renames across repository history.

Instructions

List the commits that touched one file, newest first: short hash, date, author, subject, and lines added/deleted per commit. Follows the file across renames (rename commits include a 'renamed_from' key).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`file`	Yes	File path relative to the repository root, e.g. 'src/app.py' (an absolute path inside the repository also works).
`limit`	No	Maximum number of commits to return.
`repo_path`	Yes	Absolute path to a local git repository, or to any folder inside one (a sub-folder scopes the analysis to it).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: results are ordered newest first, history follows renames across the file, and rename commits carry a 'renamed_from' key.

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 tight sentences, with the primary scope front-loaded and the rename caveat following. No filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining essentials: ordering, per-commit fields, and rename-following semantics. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 file, limit, and repo_path are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., default limit behavior), so it lands at the baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the commits that touched one file') and enumerates the returned fields (short hash, date, author, subject, added/deleted lines). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_commits and commit_details.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The scope ('one file') implies when to use it versus repo-wide tools, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_commits, commit_details, or find_change. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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

Deploy Server