Git MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get commit history' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify what format the history is returned in, whether it includes all branches or just current, pagination behavior, or any authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps about what the agent should expect.

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 maximally concise with just three words that directly convey the core functionality. There's zero wasted language, no unnecessary elaboration, and the meaning is immediately apparent. This is an excellent example of efficient communication where every word earns its place.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While the purpose is clear, there's no information about return format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool that retrieves historical data with configurable parameters, the agent needs more context about what to expect from the operation beyond just knowing it gets commit history.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters (limit and oneline) with descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'Get commit history' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('commit history'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like git_status or git_diff by focusing specifically on historical commits rather than current state or changes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlapping tools like git_show_file which might also show commit details.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like git_show_file (which might show file-specific commit history) or git_branches (which might show branch-specific commits), there's no indication of when git_log is the appropriate choice versus other commit-related tools. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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