Analyze changed files to produce a concise commit narrative including statistics, code hotspots, and a suggested commit type.
Compact commit/review narrative with stats, hotspots, suggested type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Project name/path (default: active). | |
| max_files | No | Default 20. | |
| changed_files | Yes | ||
| max_symbols_per_file | No | Default 20. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the output is a narrative but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, modifies data, has side effects, or requires permissions. This is insufficient for a tool that likely processes file data.
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 a single concise phrase, which is efficient but lacks structure. It front-loads the main purpose but omits important details. It is not verbose, but could be more informative without adding bulk.
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 tool has 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'hotspots' or 'suggested type' mean, nor how the required parameter 'changed_files' should be formatted. The description fails to fully inform the agent for correct invocation.
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?
The input schema has 75% description coverage (3 out of 4 parameters described with defaults). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema. The 'changed_files' parameter lacks description in both schema and tool description, but overall baseline is 3 due to high coverage.
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 clearly states the tool generates a compact narrative for commits/reviews with stats, hotspots, and suggested type. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are mainly analysis or search tools, but could be more specific about the input and output.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for commit/review summaries, but does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Mibayy/token-savior'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server