git_blameIdentify which commit and author last modified each line in a file by retrieving blame metadata for a bounded line range, with optional revision and line limits.
Return bounded git blame metadata for a workspace file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rev | No | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| end_line | No | ||
| max_lines | No | ||
| start_line | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| error | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the useful behavioral clue that results are 'bounded' and scoped to a workspace file, which meaningfully narrows expectations.
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?
One succinct, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. 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?
For a standard read-only git tool with an output schema and strong safety annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. Minor gaps like line-range inclusivity and rev interpretation remain, but they are partially inferable and do not block 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for parameter meaning. It only hints at 'bounded' behavior and never explains path, rev, start_line, end_line, or max_lines semantics; the agent must infer meaning from names and defaults.
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 says 'Return bounded git blame metadata for a workspace file' – a specific verb, a clear resource (git blame), and a narrow scope. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like git_log, git_diff, and git_show without needing to open the schema.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use git_blame versus the sibling git_* tools. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would route an agent to an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.