Commit Conventional Message Court (CCMCP)

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Require Better Subject

court.require_better_subject

Analyze commit subjects against code changes to enforce clarity and suggest improvements using conventional commit standards.

Instructions

Force a better commit subject and provide rewrite suggestions.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "diff": "<diff>"
    },
    "name": "court.require_better_subject"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`subject`	Yes	Commit subject line to put on trial.
`body`	No	Optional commit body.
`diff`	Yes	Unified diff or patch text.
`pr_body`	No	Optional PR description.
`style`	No	Courtroom voice preset.
`language`	No	Rendered verdict language.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Apr 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, but description fails to disclose the courtroom metaphor/personality evident in the 'style' parameter (judge/prosecutor/defense), does not clarify what 'Force' means behaviorally, and omits return format details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence is front-loaded but extremely terse. Given 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the brevity undermines completeness rather than demonstrating efficient communication.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, description should explain return values (suggestions format) and theatrical courtroom behavior. Six parameters with thematic complexity require more contextual framing than provided.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description mentions 'commit subject' aligning with the subject parameter but adds no semantic depth beyond well-documented schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear verb 'provide' and resource 'commit subject' with specific focus on rewrite suggestions. However, does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'prosecute_commit' or explain the 'court' theme.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this versus 'court.prosecute_commit' or other siblings. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., when diff is required vs optional).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server