Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GitHub MCP Server

GitHub MCP Server

by dantecaceres92
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_commits

Lists recent commits from a GitHub repository with short SHA, message, author, and date, helping users review repository history and recent changes.

Instructions

Lista los commits más recientes de un repositorio de GitHub (sha corto, mensaje, autor y fecha). Úsalo cuando el usuario quiera ver el historial o los últimos cambios de un repositorio.

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": {
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "list_commits"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesNombre del repositorio
ownerNoUsuario u organización dueña del repositorio. Si se omite, se usa el usuario autenticado
perPageNoCantidad de commits recientes a listar (1-100). Por defecto 10

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the return shape and that results are the most recent commits, but says nothing about pagination limits, ordering guarantees, authentication/rate-limit constraints, or that the operation is non-mutating. Read-only intent is inferable from "Lista", which softens the gap but does not close it.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler: capability plus returned fields first, then the usage trigger. Nothing is repeated from the schema and every clause carries information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by naming the returned fields and stating the usage trigger. The only real omission is behavioral detail on ordering and pagination, which is minor given the fully documented schema.

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 repo, owner and perPage are already fully documented, including the owner fallback to the authenticated user and the 1-100 range. The description adds only that results are "más recientes", which hints at ordering but does not elaborate on how perPage or owner interact with the result set.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Lista los commits más recientes de un repositorio de GitHub") and even enumerates the returned fields (sha corto, mensaje, autor, fecha), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the write-side sibling like create_commit, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives a clear trigger: use when the user wants to see repository history or the latest changes. That is a concrete usage context rather than an implied one. However, it names no exclusions or alternatives (e.g., nothing about when another listing tool would be preferable), so it does not reach the top band.

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