Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
git-insights-mcp

git-insights-mcp

by andriilazor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

draft_changelog

Read-onlyIdempotent

Group commits between two Git refs by conventional-commit type to draft a changelog, separating feat, fix, docs, and other non-conventional subjects.

Instructions

Commits in from_ref..to_ref grouped by conventional-commit type (feat, fix, docs, ...), with an 'other' section for subjects that do not follow the convention.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "from_ref": "<from_ref>"
    },
    "name": "draft_changelog"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesRepository alias, see the git-insights://repos resource
to_refNoInclusive end: tag, branch or commitHEAD
from_refYesExclusive start: tag, branch or commit

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYes
to_refYes
from_refYes
sectionsYesNon-empty sections in a fixed order
total_commitsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the grouping semantics and the 'other' fallback section, which is genuinely useful output-shaping context, but it says nothing about empty ranges, ordering, or commit-limit behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single efficient sentence with no filler, and the range scope is stated up front before the grouping behavior. It is a fragment without an explicit verb, which slightly weakens the lead.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and 100% schema description coverage, the description need not restate parameter or return details; it complements them with the grouping rule. The only real gap is the absent when-to-use context, which is captured under usage guidelines.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains the exclusive start, inclusive end, and the repo alias resource. The description's 'from_ref..to_ref' phrasing reinforces the range but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the exact resource (commits in from_ref..to_ref) and the transformation applied (grouped by conventional-commit type, with an 'other' bucket), so an agent knows this produces a changelog-style grouping. It is implicitly distinguishable from siblings like repo_summary or hotspots, though it never states outright that it drafts a changelog nor contrasts itself with any sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that the repo alias must exist per the git-insights://repos resource), and no mention of alternatives among repo_summary, hotspots, author_activity, file_history, or coupled_files. The agent must infer usage entirely from the output format.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools