Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GitHub MCP Server — AutomateHub

GitHub MCP Server — AutomateHub

by gnvidia06-ux
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Listar commits

list_commits

Retrieve recent commits from a GitHub repository or specified branch to inspect recent changes, authors, or commit history.

Instructions

Lista los commits más recientes de un repositorio de GitHub (de la branch principal o de la que se indique). Usala cuando el usuario pregunte qué cambios se hicieron últimamente, quién hizo un cambio o quiera ver el historial.

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, sin el owner. Ejemplo: 'mi-proyecto'.
ownerNoUsuario u organización dueña del repositorio. Si se omite, se usa el usuario autenticado (dueño del token).
branchNoBranch de la cual listar commits. Si se omite, se usa la principal.
perPageNoCantidad de commits a devolver (1 a 100). Por defecto 30.

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 full behavioral burden. It discloses the useful default that the main branch is used when none is given and implies results are ordered from most recent, but it says nothing about read-only nature, authentication expectations, GitHub rate limits, or the shape of a returned commit.

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 sentences, zero filler: the operation and its default scope come first, then the usage triggers. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 low-risk four-parameter listing tool with a fully documented schema but no annotations and no output schema, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. It leaves a small gap around what a returned commit contains and whether authentication is required.

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, branch, and perPage are all already documented with constraints and defaults. The description only echoes the branch default, adding no new meaning such as accepted branch syntax or pagination behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Lista los commits más recientes de un repositorio de GitHub") and clarifies the default scope (principal branch or the one indicated). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_commit or list_repositories by verb and resource, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Explicit use-case triggers are provided: recent changes, who made a change, or viewing history. That covers the common entry points well, but there is no guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., for a specific commit SHA or for issues/PR history) and no named alternative among the siblings.

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