Identify who last modified each line of a file, optionally within a line range, to trace code changes and ownership.
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.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the safety burden and does disclose 'read-only', which is the key behavioral fact for a git inspection tool. However it says nothing about what happens with an invalid path, an uncommitted working tree, or repository/permission prerequisites.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the safety trait, ending with the only optional behavior an agent needs at call time. Nothing wasted.
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 no explanation, and the read-only trait plus line-range option cover the essentials. But with four parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the 'repo' parameter and line-range semantics unexplained, which is a real gap for correct 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 and largely does not: it implies a file path and a start/end line range but never explains the 'repo' parameter (default '.') or clarifies line-range numbering, inclusivity, or whether start/end can be supplied independently.
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 who last changed each line of a file') that names the exact git blame semantic and distinguishes it from git_log (history) and git_diff (changes), with no overlap in interpretation.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for line-level attribution, and 'optionally limit to a line range' hints at a narrowing use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs git_log/git_diff guidance or prerequisite conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.