Retrieve recent commits for a service to identify changes. Specify the service name and optionally a start date to filter commits.
Get recent commits for a service to identify recent changes
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No | ISO date string to get commits since | |
| perPage | No | Number of commits to fetch (default: 10) | |
| serviceName | Yes | Name of the service |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't disclose whether this is read-only (implied by 'get' but unstated), pagination behavior, default limits, or what data each commit includes. The default perPage=10 is only in the schema, not the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded. No wasted words, though the trailing purpose clause is somewhat redundant with the verb itself.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain read-only nature, result format, and relation to sibling tools. The schema covers parameters well, but overall behavioral context is thin for a tool whose output shape is undefined.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including format hints ('ISO date string') and perPage default. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear verb (get) and resource (recent commits) scoped to a service, plus a purpose (identify recent changes). It doesn't differentiate from siblings like get_pull_requests or compare_branches, which also concern code activity, but the resource is specific enough to be distinguishable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. The phrase 'to identify recent changes' hints at intent but doesn't help an agent decide between this and get_pull_requests or compare_branches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.