Retrieve project commit history with a configurable count to review recent code changes and understand development progress.
View project commit history.
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": "git_log"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of commits to view |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'View' implies a read-only operation but does not disclose whether a git repo must be initialized, what branch context applies, or what the output looks like. Minimal behavioral detail beyond the verb.
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 sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core purpose immediately and is appropriately 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?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is adequate but lacks context about output format, branch behavior, or when to prefer it over git_status/git_diff. Since no output schema exists, the description could have added more value.
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 schema fully describes the only parameter `count` with a clear description and default value (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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's function with a specific verb ('View') and resource ('project commit history'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like git_status and git_diff by focusing on history, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 sibling tools like git_status or git_diff. The description offers no context on typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.