@cloud9-labs/mcp-github

github_list_commits

List GitHub repository commits with filters for branch, file path, author, and pagination. Retrieve commit history for any repo to trace changes and audit activity.

Instructions

List commits in 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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "github_list_commits"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sha`	No	Branch or commit SHA to start from
`page`	No	Page number
`path`	No	Only commits containing this file path
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner username
`author`	No	GitHub username or email address
`per_page`	No	Results per page

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the core function, omitting details about pagination, default ordering, response format, or rate limits that would be valuable for a list operation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and immediately understandable.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description provides no context about expected input, output shape, or operational constraints. It is minimal but leaves significant gaps for an agent to safely use the tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter information. The description does not clarify parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides, but it also does not need to due to complete schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('commits in a repository'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like github_list_issues or github_list_branches. It unambiguously identifies the action and target.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or how it fits into a workflow. There is no mention of filtering, pagination, or contextual cues to help an agent decide to invoke it.

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

Deploy Server