git_blameIdentify the author and commit for each line in a tracked file using Git blame. Specify file, start line, and count to retrieve blame information.
Blame line ranges of a tracked file. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| count | No | ||
| start | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the 'Read-only' label adds little. However, the description contributes useful context by narrowing the scope to line ranges of a tracked file, implying that untracked files are out of scope. It does not contradict 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 very short and front-loaded, with no wasted sentences. 'Read-only' is slightly redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation, but the overall structure is efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given four parameters with zero schema descriptions, this description is incomplete. It does not clarify the distinction between path and file, nor how start and count define the line range. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the invocation contract remains underspecified.
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 does not explain the meaning of 'path' versus 'file' or the roles of 'start' and 'count'. The phrase 'line ranges' only hints at start/count semantics but is not sufficient for an agent to confidently construct arguments.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Blame line ranges of a tracked file.' It clearly identifies the operation and scope, and 'blame' is distinct enough from sibling git tools like git_log or git_diff to avoid confusion.
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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as git_log, git_show, or git_diff. The description only implies usage through the term 'blame' and the tracked-file constraint, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.