Retrieve a GitHub commit's message, author, stats, and changed files with diff snippets by providing the commit SHA and optional repository details.
Inspect a specific GitHub commit's message, author, stats, and modified files with diff snippets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sha | Yes | Commit SHA | |
| repo | No | GitHub repo name | |
| owner | No | GitHub owner/org |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It partially discharges this by disclosing what the tool returns (message, author, stats, files with diff snippets), implying a read-only inspection, but it never states the safety profile, auth/token requirements, or whether diff snippets are truncated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the return-content detail is packed efficiently and nothing needs to be trimmed or moved.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 compensates reasonably by summarizing the returned structure, and all three parameters are documented in the schema. It stops short of covering auth needs, diff truncation, or error behavior, but it is largely sufficient for a simple lookup tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so sha, repo, and owner are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning, such as whether owner/repo can be defaulted or must be supplied together, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Inspect') on a specific resource ('a specific GitHub commit') and enumerates the returned content (message, author, stats, modified files with diff snippets). It is unambiguous against the sibling list, none of which deal with commits, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any named sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites such as required GitHub authentication, and no indication of when it would be inappropriate (e.g. very large commits). The single sentence is purely descriptive of output.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.