list_commitsRetrieve commits on a branch or tag, optionally filtered by file path, to review change history in Forgejo or Gitea repositories.
List commits on a branch/ref, optionally limited to a file path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sha | No | Branch, tag or SHA | |
| page | No | Page number (default 1) | |
| path | No | ||
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| limit | No | Results per page (default 30, max 100) | |
| 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 essentially no behavioral context beyond that — no note on pagination, ordering, or result volume, which is the main thing a caller of a list endpoint needs.
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 zero filler; the scope and the optional narrowing filter are both stated immediately.
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?
Adequate for a read-only list tool with 83% schema coverage and annotations covering safety, but there is no output schema and the description says nothing about what a commit entry contains or how results are paged/ordered. Minor but real gaps remain.
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 83%, so the schema already documents owner, repo, sha, page and limit. The description restates the sha ('branch/ref') and path semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.
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 ('List commits') plus the scoping axis ('on a branch/ref, optionally limited to a file path'). This distinguishes it from the singular get_commit sibling by implication, though the sibling is never named explicitly.
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 phrase 'optionally limited to a file path' hints at when to narrow the query, and the tool name implies listing versus the singular get_commit. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative for retrieving a single commit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.