Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Git Metrics MCP Server

Git Metrics MCP Server

by jonmatum
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_file_churn

Analyze file churn in a git repository by retrieving files with the most changes within a specified date range. Helps identify frequently modified files to track code instability.

Instructions

Get files with most changes (churn)

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_file_churn"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repo_pathYesPath to git repository
sinceYesStart date (YYYY-MM-DD)
untilNoEnd date (YYYY-MM-DD), optional
limitNoNumber of files to return, default 10

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the purpose without explaining what 'churn' means (e.g., definition, calculation method), safety, or side effects.

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, concise sentence. It is not verbose, though a bit more structure could enhance clarity. It earns its place without redundant words.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description lacks explanation of return format, pagination, or how churn is computed, making it incomplete for agent invocation.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, but the schema itself is adequate, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Get files with most changes (churn)', effectively conveying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_commit_stats or get_quality_metrics by focusing on file churn.

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 others, such as get_commit_patterns or get_author_metrics. No context on prerequisites or limitations is given.

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