mcp-repo-release-tools

by Anselmoo

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

How many commits since a ref, ignoring generated files?

rrt_git_commits_since

Read-onlyIdempotent

List Git commits from a specified ref to HEAD while filtering out commits that only modify excluded or generated paths.

Instructions

List commits in ..HEAD, leaving out commits that only touch exclude paths.

A file that records HEAD can exclude itself, making "one commit behind" its resting state. Patterns are root-anchored git globs. exclude_generated adds every [tool.rrt.git].generated pattern. An unknown ref returns error, never count 0.

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": {
      "ref": "<ref>"
    },
    "name": "rrt_git_commits_since"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref`	Yes
`exclude`	No
`exclude_generated`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref`	Yes
`count`	No
`error`	No
`commits`	No
`exclude`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.19.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: an unknown ref returns an error rather than count 0, patterns are root-anchored git globs, and a HEAD-recording file can exclude its own commit. That last point is subtly worded but is real operational context beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core operation before the caveats. The self-exclusion sentence is terse to the point of being cryptic, but nothing is padding.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still flags the error-vs-zero distinction that matters most for interpreting results. What remains thin is direction on when an agent should reach for this tool versus the other git-safety siblings.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and largely meets it: `exclude` is defined as root-anchored git globs matching paths to ignore, `exclude_generated` as adding every [tool.rrt.git].generated pattern from config, and `ref` as the range start with defined failure behavior. It stops short of stating matching semantics (per-commit vs per-file exclusion already covered) or glob negation, so not a 5.

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 ("List commits") with an explicit range ("<ref>..HEAD") and a filter condition ("leaving out commits that only touch *exclude* paths"). That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from generic git wrappers, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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 description implies usage (counting how far behind HEAD is, excluding generated churn) via the "one commit behind" caveat, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against siblings such as rrt_git_dirty_tree or rrt_gate_run. The reader must infer the use case.

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