Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Git Metrics MCP Server

Git Metrics MCP Server

by jonmatum
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_quality_metrics

Analyze code quality indicators like commit size and revert frequency for a Git repository within a specified date range to evaluate development patterns.

Instructions

Code quality indicators (commit size, reverts, etc)

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_quality_metrics"
  }
}

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

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, data aggregation, or how metrics are computed. The minimal description is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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?

The description is very short (one sentence) but lacks a leading verb, making it slightly unclear. It is concise but at the cost of completeness.

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, the description is too brief. It fails to explain return format, aggregation period, or how metrics are calculated. The tool's complexity demands more context.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new semantics beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (which already specify date format and optionality). It neither enhances nor detracts.

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 clearly indicates the tool provides code quality indicators with specific examples (commit size, reverts). It differentiates from siblings by focusing on quality metrics, though it lacks a verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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 tool versus alternatives like get_commit_patterns or get_technical_debt. The description implies usage for quality analysis but provides no exclusion criteria or context.

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