Skip to main content
Glama
commit-check

commit-check-mcp

Official
by commit-check
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Validate author info

validate_author_info
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a commit author's name and email against configured rules, returning status and detailed check results to identify violations.

Instructions

Validate a commit author's name and/or email against the configured rules (e.g. allowed email domains, name patterns). Read-only.

Returns {status, warnings, checks[]}. status is 'pass', 'fail' or 'skip': only 'fail' is a rejection; 'skip' means every check skipped, so nothing was validated and the result is not approval. warnings is the number of checks with status 'warn'. Each check has: rule_id (stable rule id, e.g. 'CC001'); check (rule name, e.g. 'message'); status 'pass' | 'fail' | 'warn' | 'skip' ('warn' = the config lists the check under warn, so the finding is reported without failing the run; 'skip' = the rule did not run, e.g. the author is in ignore_authors or there was nothing to check); value (what was checked); error (why it failed); suggest (advice for a person); fix (the corrected value when the correction is unambiguous, else ''); docs_url (documentation for the rule). On 'fail', apply a non-empty fix verbatim; when fix is '', rewrite following suggest; then validate again.

Use this to check author metadata before committing. Only the values you pass are checked; if neither is given, both are read from repo_path's git config (falling back to the latest commit) and repo_path must be a git repository. For combined validation use validate_commit_context.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
configNoInline commit-check config overrides as a JSON object, merged on top of the built-in defaults and any config file, e.g. {"warn": ["message"]} or {"commit": {"require_body": true}}.
repo_pathNoPath to the git repository to validate against. Its cchk.toml or commit-check.toml (also looked up under .github/) is loaded, and a relative config_path is resolved from it. Omit to use the server's working directory.
author_nameNoAuthor name to validate, e.g. 'Alice Example'. Omit to read it from repo_path (git config user.name, falling back to the latest commit's author). Must be non-empty when provided.
config_pathNoPath to a commit-check TOML config file, used instead of the repository's own cchk.toml/commit-check.toml; a relative path is resolved from repo_path.
author_emailNoAuthor email to validate, e.g. 'alice@example.com'. Omit to read it from repo_path (git config user.email, falling back to the latest commit's author). Must be non-empty when provided.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.1.10
    • addedInput schema / properties / author_email / description
      Added value: +"Author email to validate, e.g. 'alice@example.com'. Omit to read it from repo_path (git config user.email, falling back to the latest commit's author). Must be non-empty when provided."
    • addedInput schema / properties / author_name / description
      Added value: +"Author name to validate, e.g. 'Alice Example'. Omit to read it from repo_path (git config user.name, falling back to the latest commit's author). Must be non-empty when provided."
    • addedInput schema / properties / config / description
      Added value: +"Inline commit-check config overrides as a JSON object, merged on top of the built-in defaults and any config file, e.g. {\"warn\": [\"message\"]} or {\"commit\": {\"require_body\": true}}."
    • addedInput schema / properties / config_path / description
      Added value: +"Path to a commit-check TOML config file, used instead of the repository's own cchk.toml/commit-check.toml; a relative path is resolved from repo_path."
    • addedInput schema / properties / repo_path / description
      Added value: +"Path to the git repository to validate against. Its cchk.toml or commit-check.toml (also looked up under .github/) is loaded, and a relative config_path is resolved from it. Omit to use the server's working directory."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'Read-only' matches those. Beyond that, it discloses substantial behavioral detail: the full {status, warnings, checks[]} return contract, precise semantics of 'fail' (the only rejection) vs 'skip' (not approval), per-check field meanings, and the exact remediation protocol ('On fail, apply a non-empty fix verbatim; when fix is '', rewrite following suggest; then validate again'). This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 long, but every block earns its place: core purpose first, then the return contract, then usage/omission behavior, then the sibling pointer. The status/check-field detail is dense but essential for correct result interpretation. It could trim some redundancy (e.g. the 'skip' semantics are restated in both the status line and the check field description), but it remains front-loaded and logically ordered.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description explains the return contract anyway, which adds agent value by interpreting status meanings and the warn/skip/ignore semantics. For a zero-required-param tool with 5 optional params and complex fallback behavior, the description covers purpose, return format, remediation, parameter omission, repo requirements, and routing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real interaction semantics beyond the schema: it explains that only passed values are checked, that omitting both author_name and author_email causes reads from repo_path's git config with fallback to the latest commit, and that repo_path must be a git repository. This cross-parameter behavior is exactly what an agent needs and is not in the individual parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Validate a commit author's name and/or email against the configured rules'), names concrete rule types (allowed email domains, name patterns), and explicitly differentiates from validate_commit_context ('For combined validation use validate_commit_context'). An agent can immediately tell this tool apart from its seven siblings without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It states when to use the tool ('Use this to check author metadata before committing'), clarifies the crucial parameter-omission behavior (values read from repo_path's git config, falling back to the latest commit), and names the one alternative for combined validation. It could more explicitly enumerate exclusions for the other siblings (validate_commit_message, validate_branch_name), but the names plus the combined-validation pointer give adequate routing guidance.

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