Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ForgeMCP

ForgeMCP

by hardened-steel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

git_show

Read-only

Read a Git commit and its first-parent patch, including root commits, to inspect revision changes and history.

Instructions

Read a commit and its first-parent patch, including root commits.

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_show"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
revisionNoHEAD

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
diffYes
commitYes

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: the output is a patch limited to first-parent history and root commits are handled rather than erroring. It does not disclose size limits, pagination, or whether binary/large diffs are truncated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the most distinguishing qualifier ("first-parent patch") comes before the edge case ("root commits"). 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.

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is revision syntax and any hint of when to prefer this over adjacent git tools, which is material for a 50-sibling toolset.

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?

There is one parameter ("revision", defaulting to "HEAD") with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about accepted revision syntax (SHA, branch, tag, HEAD~2, ranges) or whether ranges are supported given the first-parent limitation.

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 uses a specific verb ("Read") with a specific resource ("a commit and its first-parent patch"), and adds scope ("including root commits") that separates it from git_log and git_diff. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of the top score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this versus git_log (history listing), git_diff (working-tree or range diffs), or git_blame. An agent must infer from the one-line purpose which of these ~50 siblings to pick.

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