Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gitlog-mcp

gitlog-mcp

by ManiaSacha
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

changelog

Generate a grouped changelog for any commit range, such as between two version tags, to summarize git changes.

Instructions

Generate a grouped changelog for a commit range (e.g. v1.2.0..v1.3.0).

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": "changelog"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sinceNoHEAD~20
untilNoHEAD

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only indicates the output is 'grouped', but does not mention read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The agent gains little insight beyond the basic function.

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?

The description is a single, well-front-loaded sentence with no waste. It efficiently conveys the core action. However, the brevity sacrifices necessary detail that could be added without much length.

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?

Given two optional parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient. Even with an output schema, the agent lacks usage guidelines and parameter semantics. The tool is simple, but the description leaves ambiguity about how to specify the range correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions a commit range example ('v1.2.0..v1.3.0') which hints at the 'since' and 'until' parameters, but does not explicitly map them or explain their formats. The default values ('HEAD~20', 'HEAD') are not explained.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'generate' and the resource 'grouped changelog', and specifies the scope 'for a commit range' with an example format. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like release_notes, though the purpose is distinct.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs. alternative sibling tools (e.g., release_notes, search_commits). The description implies usage for commit ranges but offers no exclusions or conditional context.

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