Fetch recent git commits from the Mnemosyne OS monorepo to learn what changed, which phase is active, and which features shipped.
Get recent git commits from the Mnemosyne OS monorepo. Use this to understand what changed recently, which phase is active, and what features were shipped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of commits to return (default: 20) | |
| since | No | Time range (e.g. "7 days ago", "2024-01-01") | 30 days ago |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and 'recent git commits' conveys the data source, but the description does not explicitly state that the tool performs no mutations, nor does it describe the output fields, ordering, or failure modes. Adequate for a simple read tool, but not fully transparent.
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 two clean sentences: the first states the action and resource, and the second gives the practical use case. There is no redundant wording or irrelevant context, and important information is front-loaded.
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?
The tool is relatively simple with only two optional parameters and no output schema. The description gives purpose and use case, but since there is no output schema it would benefit from clarifying what fields are returned (e.g., hashes, messages, dates). Still, enough information exists for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Both parameters are fully described in the input schema with defaults and example formats, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 identifies the operation ('Get recent git commits'), the specific resource ('Mnemosyne OS monorepo'), and the intended context (understanding recent changes, active phase, shipped features). This differentiates it from the sibling tools, which focus on other Mnemosyne subsystems.
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?
The description explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use this to understand what changed recently, which phase is active, and what features were shipped.' This gives the agent clear invocation context, though it does not name specific alternatives or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.