Display a commit's message and diff for review, or return only the file summary when stat_only is true; read-only access keeps inspection safe.
Show a commit's message and diff (read-only). stat_only=true gives only the file summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rev | No | HEAD | |
| path | No | ||
| repo | No | . | |
| stat_only | 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so '(read-only)' in the description adds nothing. The one genuine addition is that stat_only suppresses the diff in favor of a file summary, which tells the agent how output shape changes with input.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no padding. The parenthetical '(read-only)' is redundant with the annotations and is the only wasted token.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What's missing is the parameter-level context — notably how rev and path scope the operation — which matters for a tool whose main risk is asking for the wrong revision.
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% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the burden — but it only explains stat_only. The meanings of rev (does it accept ranges? branches? HEAD default?), path (path filtering?), and repo are left entirely undocumented.
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 ('Show a commit's message and diff') and clarifies the stat_only variant. It does not, however, differentiate itself from closely related siblings like git_diff, git_log, or git_diff_summary, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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 description explains what the tool does but never says when to prefer it over git_diff/git_log/git_diff_summary or what conditions argue against it. The only usage-adjacent sentence is about a parameter mode, not tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.