token-pilot

smart_log

Get structured commit history with category detection (feat/fix/refactor/docs), file statistics, and author breakdown. Filter by path and ref to reduce token usage.

Instructions

Use INSTEAD OF raw git log. Structured commit history with category detection (feat/fix/refactor/docs), file stats, author breakdown. Filters by path and ref. HEADS UP: two verification runs measured this tool at ~39% token reduction (borderline — vs 95-99% for outline/smart_diff). Cumulative data being gathered — tool may be dropped or redesigned in v0.30.0 if numbers don't improve. Prefer scoping with path or count to tighten savings.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "smart_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	No	Filter to specific file or directory
`count`	No	Number of commits (default: 10, max: 50)
`ref`	No	Git ref — branch, tag, or commit (default: HEAD)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.47.0Jun 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses token reduction (~39%), borderline performance, and possibility of being dropped. Good behavioral context beyond default expectations, though no mention of read-only nature (no annotations to rely on).

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?

Description is slightly long but well-organized with clear sections (purpose, guidelines, heads-up). Every sentence adds value, though minor redundancy in token reduction mention.

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?

Covers purpose, usage alternatives, behavioral notes, and parameter guidance adequately. No output schema, but description doesn't need to detail return values; however, could mention that return is structured.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining that path and count tighten token savings and specifies count's default (10) and max (50), exceeding schema info.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states 'Use INSTEAD OF raw git log' and describes structured commit history with category detection, file stats, author breakdown. Distinguishes from raw git log and provides filtering capabilities.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly compares to raw git log, advises scoping with path and count for token savings, and warns about potential deprecation. Provides clear context for when to use this tool.

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