GitHub MCP Server

github_get_commit

Retrieve detailed information about a specific commit in a GitHub repository using its SHA and repository identifier.

Instructions

獲取特定提交的詳細資訊

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": {
      "repository": "<repository>",
      "sha": "<sha>"
    },
    "name": "github_get_commit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sha`	Yes	提交的 SHA 值
`repository`	Yes	倉庫標識 (格式: owner/repo)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the basic read operation — no note on permissions, rate limits, or what '詳細資訊' actually includes. For a tool with zero structured safety hints, this is a notable gap.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the missing routing and behavioral detail.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, no annotations, and only two well-documented parameters, the definition is minimally viable. It omits what the returned '詳細資訊' contains and how this differs from the plural commit-listing sibling, so it is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 both parameters (sha, repository) are fully documented in the schema, including the owner/repo format. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline.

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 ('獲取') and resource ('特定提交'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling github_get_commits (plural), which likely lists commits, so an agent must infer the singular-vs-list distinction.

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 github_get_commits, github_get_file_content, or any other sibling, and no preconditions or exclusions are given. The description only says what it does, not when to choose it.

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