gittr-mcp

getCommitHistory

Retrieve commit history for a repository by owner public key and repo ID. Configure branch and limit to get the exact commits needed.

Instructions

Get commit history for a repository

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": {
      "ownerPubkey": "<ownerPubkey>",
      "repoId": "<repoId>"
    },
    "name": "getCommitHistory"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max commits (default 50)
`branch`	No	Branch name (default: main)
`relays`	No
`repoId`	Yes	Repository ID
`ownerPubkey`	Yes	Repository owner pubkey

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It merely states 'Get commit history' without disclosing behavior such as default branch handling, pagination limits, whether it is a read-only operation, or the role of the 'relays' parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool's name.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is slightly under-specifying for a 5-parameter tool, but the conciseness itself is strong.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters, the description is too minimal to be complete. It does not explain what the returned commit history looks like, how branches are handled, or what 'relays' means in this context. The description leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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?

The schema covers 4 out of 5 parameters (80% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter semantics; it relies on the schema's descriptions for the parameters. The 'relays' parameter lacks a schema description, but the description does not compensate for that gap.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Get commit history') that clearly states the tool's function. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like bridgeListCommits, but the term 'repository' provides a distinct context, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it operates on repository commit history as opposed to bridge commits, nor does it provide any contextual hints about suitable scenarios.

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

Deploy Server