Read recent commits from a local Git repository to review project history. Control result count, working directory, and one-line output.
Read recent commits from the local repository.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | Optional local working directory or repository path. | |
| oneline | No | Use git log --oneline. | |
| maxCount | No | Maximum number of commits to return. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads commits but omits important details such as default commit limit (maxCount=10), pagination behavior, whether it returns commit metadata or just messages, and any authentication or repository state requirements. For a read-only operation, this leaves significant gaps.
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?
A single, clear sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. No wasted words or redundancy.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and return value details, which are important for an agent to invoke it 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters like cwd, oneline, and maxCount are fully documented in the schema. The description adds little beyond the schema, merely implying recent commits without explaining parameter effects or defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('recent commits from the local repository'), clearly differentiating from siblings like git_show or git_blame. The scope 'local repository' is a useful qualifier, though it doesn't explicitly name how it differs from git show or git status.
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 phrase 'recent commits' implies the tool's purpose but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like git_show or git_blame. No when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisite information is included.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.