Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Git Metrics MCP Server

Git Metrics MCP Server

by jonmatum
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_commit_patterns

Analyze commit frequency patterns by day and hour to identify peak development times and trends, enabling teams to optimize workflow and detect anomalies.

Instructions

Analyze commit frequency patterns by day and hour

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_commit_patterns"
  }
}

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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool analyzes patterns, but does not specify if it is a read-only operation, what side effects exist (none expected), or the output format. Lacks details on data source (local repo) and any performance considerations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It is concise, though it could be expanded slightly to include more context without losing conciseness.

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?

Given no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context about the output (e.g., commit frequency distribution) and usage context. It lacks information about return structure and how the results are grouped.

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 descriptions for all three parameters (repo_path, since, until). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool analyzes commit frequency patterns by day and hour, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_commit_stats or get_velocity_trends. It is specific about the dimensions of analysis.

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 alternatives like get_commit_stats or get_author_metrics. The description does not state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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