Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Git Metrics MCP Server

Git Metrics MCP Server

by jonmatum
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_code_ownership

Analyze git commit history to identify code ownership and compute bus factor for a specified date range.

Instructions

Analyze code ownership and bus factor

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": {
      "repo_path": "<repo_path>",
      "since": "<since>"
    },
    "name": "get_code_ownership"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repo_pathYesPath to git repository
sinceYesStart date (YYYY-MM-DD)
untilNoEnd date (YYYY-MM-DD), optional

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Analyze', implying a read operation, but does not confirm non-destructiveness, required permissions, or any side effects. The agent cannot infer safety or resource impact.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single sentence that immediately states the core purpose. It is highly concise with no redundant content, earning a score of 4.

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?

Despite having three parameters and no output schema, the description omits explanation of the return format, the definition of 'bus factor', and any calculation details. This leaves the agent underinformed about what the tool produces.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'Path to git repository'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description uses a clear verb ('analyze') and identifies the specific resources ('code ownership and bus factor'). It is more specific than general sibling tools like 'get_author_metrics', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from them. Still, the purpose is well communicated.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., get_author_metrics, get_collaboration_metrics). There is no mention of prerequisites or context, leaving the agent without decision-support information.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools