Retrieve a repository's commit history by owner/repo, optionally filtering by branch or commit SHA, date range, and page size.
獲取倉庫的提交歷史
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sha | No | 分支名稱或提交 SHA | |
| since | No | 起始時間 (ISO 8601 格式) | |
| until | No | 結束時間 (ISO 8601 格式) | |
| per_page | No | 每頁顯示數量 | |
| repository | Yes | 倉庫標識 (格式: owner/repo) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose read-only nature, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or any details about ordering or default limits. This is a significant gap for a list-retrieval tool.
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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be more front-loaded with key details, but for its length it is appropriately structured.
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 annotations, no output schema, and five parameters, the description is far too sparse. An agent would not know if this returns all commits, how pagination works, whether it is safe to call, or how to filter effectively, making the definition incomplete for correct invocation.
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 100%, meaning all 5 parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully handles parameter documentation.
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 '獲取倉庫的提交歷史' (Get the repository's commit history) states a clear verb+resource: retrieving commit history. It distinguishes itself from the sibling github_get_commit which fetches a single commit. The only missing element is any mention of scope or filtering.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_get_commit or how to apply filters such as since/until. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate situations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.