get_commitFetch a single commit by SHA from an owner/repo, including changed files, to inspect code changes.
Get a single commit by SHA, including changed files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sha | Yes | ||
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| owner | Yes | Repository owner (user or organization) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that changed files are included in the result, which is modest added value beyond the structured fields.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a tool with three required identifiers.
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?
With no output schema, the description should carry more of the return-shape burden than just 'including changed files'; it does not say how file contents or patches are represented. The required owner/repo/sha contract and read-only nature are sufficiently implied, so the definition is adequate but thin.
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 coverage is 67%: owner and repo are described in the schema, while sha is not. The phrase 'by SHA' clarifies that sha is a commit identifier rather than a branch or tag, but adds no format detail (full vs. abbreviated hash), so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Get a single commit') and adds scope detail ('by SHA, including changed files'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_commit_status, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative list_commits for enumerating commits, and no note about when get_commit_status would be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.