Skip to main content
Glama

Record a git commit onto the nodes it touched

record_commit

Record a commit to configuration nodes: match changed files against metadata.implements, append the commit SHA and message, and flag co-change candidates for dependency review.

Instructions

Configuration record (CI/CD). Given a commit SHA and the files it changed, finds nodes whose metadata.implements include any of those files and appends the commit (sha + timestamp + optional message) to their metadata.commits (deduped by sha). Returns the matched node ids. When one commit touches several nodes that are NOT yet connected, the response also carries coChangeCandidates[] ({a, aLabel, b, bLabel}) — nodes that change together are dependency candidates; review them and add a create_edge/create_api where a real relation exists (not auto-created; suppressed for large multi-node commits). Umtri does not run jobs or read git itself — a GitHub Action / CI step or an agent supplies the sha+files. Recording a commit is the LAST step: first make sure the change is in the tree (new unit → create_node with metadata.implements; moved file → update_node), otherwise the sha lands on the nodes that happen to exist and the new ones stay invisible. A repo that keeps forgetting should write the habit down — see umtri://rules/commit-sync. See also umtri://rules/plan.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
shaYesCommit SHA (short or full).
slugYesGround slug.
filesYesRepo-relative paths changed by the commit, matched against nodes' metadata.implements.
messageNoCommit message (optional, stored with the record).
Behavior5/5

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 discloses deduplication by sha, appending timestamp/message, returning matched node ids, that coChangeCandidates are not auto-created, suppression for large commits, and that Umtri does not read git itself. This is comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 detailed and well-structured, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds needed context about preconditions, behavior, or output. Slight extra length from rule references, but justified for a tool with multiple caveats.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Even without an output schema, the description covers return values (matched node ids, coChangeCandidates), preconditions (change must be in tree), edge cases (dedup, large commits), and dependencies (external CI supplies sha+files). This makes it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described, so baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond schema: it restates that files are matched against metadata.implements and message is optional, but these are already in the schema. No significant new semantic detail.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('appends') and resource ('metadata.commits'), and explicitly states it records git commit metadata onto nodes. It clearly differentiates itself from sibling CRUD tools (create_node, update_node) by focusing on the commit record action.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states recording is the LAST step, instructs to use create_node for new units and update_node for moved files first, and warns about consequences of skipping that. It also references create_edge/create_api for co-change candidates and cites rules for commit-sync, giving practical usage guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/bepuljang/umtri-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server