Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ForgeMCP

ForgeMCP

by hardened-steel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

git_log

Read-only

Read a bounded page of Git commits and reuse the resolved revision for subsequent pages.

Instructions

Read a bounded commit page; reuse its resolved revision for later pages.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "git_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNo
skipNo
limitNo
revisionNoHEAD

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commitsYes
revisionYes
next_skipNo
process_idsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.5.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavior about bounded paging and reusing a resolved revision, but it does not explain ordering, path scoping, or what 'resolved revision' means in practice.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its terseness leaves important parameter meaning unstated.

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?

Annotations and the output schema cover safety and return shape, but the input schema has 0% description coverage and the description leaves path, skip, limit, and revision semantics largely unexplained. For a four-parameter paginated tool, this is incomplete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for four undocumented parameters. It only hints at pagination and revision reuse; it does not explain path filtering, skip offset, limit page size, or the default HEAD revision.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read a bounded commit page.' This clearly identifies a paged git history operation and distinguishes it from siblings such as git_show or git_diff, though it does not explicitly say 'commit history' or name the repository scope.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives useful pagination guidance: reuse the resolved revision for later pages. However, it does not explain when to use git_log versus git_show, git_blame, or git_diff, nor does it describe path filtering or revision selection.

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