list_commitsList commit history with timestamps and author details to track document versions. Review who changed what and when for audit trails.
Liste les commits stockés dans le CAS avec métadonnées d'horodatage et auteur.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| target | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that commits carry timestamp and author metadata; it does not state whether this is read-only, whether authentication or preconditions are required, how mode/target alter behavior, or what the listing returns. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
The single sentence is well-formed and front-loads the core action, with no wasted words. However, for a three-parameter tool it is underspecified rather than efficiently concise; brevity here comes at the cost of missing necessary context.
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?
The output schema covers the return format, but all three parameters are undocumented and there are no annotations to fill the gap. mode and target in particular are opaque, leaving an agent unable to invoke the tool meaningfully. Incomplete for a tool of this parameter count.
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 0% and the description explains none of the three parameters (mode, limit, target). The schema only supplies defaults, not semantics, so the agent cannot determine what values to pass. With three undocumented parameters and no compensatory text, this is the weakest dimension.
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 specific verb and resource (list commits) plus the storage context (CAS) and what metadata is returned (timestamp, author). It is distinguishable from restore_commit and prune_commits on name alone, though it never explicitly contrasts with commit_document or record_git_pull_event. Clear purpose, minor gap in sibling differentiation.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus the five siblings. There is no mention of when it applies, what scenario routes here, or any exclusions. The presence of siblings like get_diff_artifact and restore_commit makes this omission more consequential.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.