Show who last changed each line of a file, optionally limited to a line range, to trace code ownership and recent edits.
Show who last changed each line of a file (read-only). Optionally limit to a line range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| repo | No | . | |
| end_line | No | ||
| start_line | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description repeats '(read-only)' and adds the line-range limiting behavior, but it does not add permission requirements, output expectations, or other context beyond the annotations.
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 description is two short sentences and front-loads the core purpose and read-only nature. There is no wasted language.
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 tool is simple and has an output schema plus rich annotations, so return values and safety do not need full explanation. However, with 0% schema description coverage and no mention of the 'repo' parameter, the description is not complete enough for fully confident invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate. It implies 'path' via 'file' and covers line-range use via 'start_line'/'end_line', but it never mentions the 'repo' parameter or explains parameter formats, leaving a meaningful gap.
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?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Show who last changed each line of a file.' It is specific enough to distinguish git blame from nearby git tools like git_log or git_diff, but it does not explicitly name those siblings or contrast its purpose with them.
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?
The only usage guidance is the optional line-range limitation. It does not explain when to use git_blame versus git_log, git_show, or git_diff, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.