Retrieve commits that changed a concept, newest first, including renames, authors, subjects, reasons, and paths. Pass a commit SHA to view the concept as it was then.
Commits that changed a concept, newest first, following renames: {sha, at, author, subject, reason?, path}; truncated if more exist. A sha passed as rev to concept_read shows the concept then. No git history: no revisions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds ordering (newest first), rename-following, and truncation behavior when more results exist. It omits how to retrieve the untruncated remainder and any error behavior when the concept has no history. 'No git history: no revisions' usefully warns of an empty-result case.
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?
Two terse clauses with zero filler: the payload contract is front-loaded, then the cross-tool hint, then the limitation. The compact field notation is dense but unambiguous.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and discharges it well by enumerating fields and noting truncation. It is only short on parameter documentation (limit) and on how to page past the truncation point.
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 0% and the description never mentions either parameter by name. 'id' is inferable from the tool name, but 'limit' is only vaguely gestured at by 'truncated if more exist' with no statement of its meaning, default, or range. With zero schema documentation, the description needed to compensate and does not.
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?
States precisely what it returns — commits that changed a concept, ordered newest first, with renames followed. An agent can distinguish it from concept_read, concept_list, and concept_patch without opening any schema, and the inline result shape removes ambiguity about the payload.
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?
Gives real routing guidance: 'A sha passed as rev to concept_read shows the concept then,' which tells the agent the follow-up tool and the condition that selects it. Also sets a boundary with 'No git history: no revisions.' It does not, however, state when to prefer this over alternatives such as changes_since or snapshot.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.