Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Secure Git MCP

Secure Git MCP

by IvanAbramovichWork
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

git_blame

Read-onlyIdempotent

Trace line-level commit provenance for permitted committed lines, omitting protected history and mixed metadata to enforce project policy.

Instructions

Blame permitted committed lines; protected historical provenance is omitted and mixed metadata withheld. Omit repo_path to use the configured repository. Results and operations are restricted according to project policy.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "git_blame"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
end_lineNo
revisionNoHEAD
max_countNo
repo_pathNoOptional repository root. Omit to use the server's fixed repository. An explicit path must identify that same repository.
start_lineNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2026.10.19

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that protected historical provenance is omitted and mixed metadata withheld, and that results are subject to project policy, though these statements remain vague and do not explain output format.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short, but the three sentences are not well front-loaded: the first sentence is cryptic, and the final sentence about project policy is vague and overlaps with the second sentence's omission/restriction language.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a six-parameter git blame tool with no output schema and very low schema coverage, the description omits crucial information about line-range semantics, revision handling, max_count behavior, and what the returned blame data looks like. Annotations cover safety, but the description does not fill the remaining gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 17%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. Instead it only repeats the repo_path behavior already present in the schema, leaving path, revision, start_line, end_line, and max_count completely unexplained.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description opens with 'Blame permitted committed lines,' which is a cryptic restatement of the tool name rather than a clear verb-and-resource statement. It never explains that this shows line-by-line authorship for a file, nor does it distinguish the tool from siblings like git_log or git_show.

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?

The only usage instruction is 'Omit repo_path to use the configured repository,' which is parameter guidance, not guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to choose git_blame over git_log, git_diff, or git_show.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools