Skip to main content
Glama
jonmatum

Git Metrics MCP Server

by jonmatum
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

health_check

Verifies that the Git Metrics MCP server is operational and ready to handle requests for repository analysis.

Instructions

Verify server is operational

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • src/git-metrics.ts:253-254 (handler)
    Handler logic for the health_check tool - returns status, version, and timestamp. Takes no arguments.
    if (request.params.name === "health_check") {
  result = { status: "ok", version: VERSION, timestamp: new Date().toISOString() };
  • src/git-metrics.ts:88-93 (schema)
    Input schema for health_check tool - no parameters required, empty object properties.
    name: "health_check",
description: "Verify server is operational",
inputSchema: {
  type: "object",
  properties: {},
},
  • src/git-metrics.ts:85-241 (registration)
    Registration of the health_check tool via ListToolsRequestSchema handler.
    server.setRequestHandler(ListToolsRequestSchema, async () => ({
  tools: [
    {
      name: "health_check",
      description: "Verify server is operational",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {},
      },
    },
    {
      name: "get_commit_stats",
      description: "Get commit statistics for a repository",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          repo_path: { type: "string", description: "Path to git repository" },
          since: { type: "string", description: "Start date (YYYY-MM-DD)" },
          until: { type: "string", description: "End date (YYYY-MM-DD), optional" },
          author: { type: "string", description: "Filter by author email/name, optional" },
        },
        required: ["repo_path", "since"],
      },
    },
    {
      name: "get_author_metrics",
      description: "Get detailed metrics per author",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          repo_path: { type: "string", description: "Path to git repository" },
          since: { type: "string", description: "Start date (YYYY-MM-DD)" },
          until: { type: "string", description: "End date (YYYY-MM-DD), optional" },
        },
        required: ["repo_path", "since"],
      },
    },
    {
      name: "get_file_churn",
      description: "Get files with most changes (churn)",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          repo_path: { type: "string", description: "Path to git repository" },
          since: { type: "string", description: "Start date (YYYY-MM-DD)" },
          until: { type: "string", description: "End date (YYYY-MM-DD), optional" },
          limit: { type: "number", description: "Number of files to return, default 10" },
        },
        required: ["repo_path", "since"],
      },
    },
    {
      name: "get_team_summary",
      description: "Get comprehensive team performance summary",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          repo_path: { type: "string", description: "Path to git repository" },
          since: { type: "string", description: "Start date (YYYY-MM-DD)" },
          until: { type: "string", description: "End date (YYYY-MM-DD), optional" },
        },
        required: ["repo_path", "since"],
      },
    },
    {
      name: "get_commit_patterns",
      description: "Analyze commit frequency patterns by day and hour",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          repo_path: { type: "string", description: "Path to git repository" },
          since: { type: "string", description: "Start date (YYYY-MM-DD)" },
          until: { type: "string", description: "End date (YYYY-MM-DD), optional" },
        },
        required: ["repo_path", "since"],
      },
    },
    {
      name: "get_code_ownership",
      description: "Analyze code ownership and bus factor",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          repo_path: { type: "string", description: "Path to git repository" },
          since: { type: "string", description: "Start date (YYYY-MM-DD)" },
          until: { type: "string", description: "End date (YYYY-MM-DD), optional" },
        },
        required: ["repo_path", "since"],
      },
    },
    {
      name: "get_velocity_trends",
      description: "Track velocity trends over time",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          repo_path: { type: "string", description: "Path to git repository" },
          since: { type: "string", description: "Start date (YYYY-MM-DD)" },
          until: { type: "string", description: "End date (YYYY-MM-DD), optional" },
          interval: { type: "string", description: "week or month, default week" },
        },
        required: ["repo_path", "since"],
      },
    },
    {
      name: "get_collaboration_metrics",
      description: "Analyze team collaboration patterns",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          repo_path: { type: "string", description: "Path to git repository" },
          since: { type: "string", description: "Start date (YYYY-MM-DD)" },
          until: { type: "string", description: "End date (YYYY-MM-DD), optional" },
        },
        required: ["repo_path", "since"],
      },
    },
    {
      name: "get_quality_metrics",
      description: "Code quality indicators (commit size, reverts, etc)",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          repo_path: { type: "string", description: "Path to git repository" },
          since: { type: "string", description: "Start date (YYYY-MM-DD)" },
          until: { type: "string", description: "End date (YYYY-MM-DD), optional" },
        },
        required: ["repo_path", "since"],
      },
    },
    {
      name: "get_technical_debt",
      description: "Identify technical debt indicators",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          repo_path: { type: "string", description: "Path to git repository" },
          stale_days: { type: "number", description: "Days without changes to consider stale, default 90" },
        },
        required: ["repo_path"],
      },
    },
    {
      name: "get_conventional_commits",
      description: "Analyze conventional commit usage and release patterns",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          repo_path: { type: "string", description: "Path to git repository" },
          since: { type: "string", description: "Start date (YYYY-MM-DD)" },
          until: { type: "string", description: "End date (YYYY-MM-DD), optional" },
        },
        required: ["repo_path", "since"],
      },
    },
  ],
}));

Tool Definition Quality

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool verifies server operation but does not detail what that entails (e.g., network ping, database check) or the nature of the outcome.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single concise sentence that communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. However, mentioning the return format (e.g., status object) would enhance completeness.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema is empty with 100% coverage, so no parameters need explanation. The description adds no param info, which is acceptable given there are none.

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 the verb 'Verify' and the resource 'server is operational', leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function. It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on specific metrics.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies it's a preliminary check, no context is given about prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jonmatum/git-metrics-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server