git_historyVisualizes local Git commit and branch history as a graph, letting you inspect repository state without modifying files or contacting remotes.
Show a graph of local commits and branches. Does not modify the repository or contact remotes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| branch | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| repository | No | Absolute path to the local Git checkout requested by the user. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, and the sentence 'Does not modify the repository or contact remotes' largely restates those hints. It adds the mild clarifying detail that the graph covers local commits/branches only, but discloses nothing about pagination, branch scoping, or result shape.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The second sentence is partially redundant with the annotations, which costs it the top score, but the description remains tight.
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?
With no output schema, the description should say more about what the graph returns, and with three undocumented parameters it should at least sketch the paging/branch options. As written it covers the read-only nature and the local scope but leaves return format and parameter behavior unexplained.
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 only 25% (repository is documented, limit/branch/offset are not), so the description must compensate and it does not mention any parameter. The limits on paging (limit max 300, offset) and the meaning of branch are left entirely to bare schema types.
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 and resource: 'Show a graph of local commits and branches.' It is clearly distinguishable from the mutation sibling git_commit, though it never names the sibling to route the agent explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for inspecting history rather than writing, and the 'local commits' scope hints at when it applies. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to git_commit as the alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.