Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Sora Commander

Sora Commander

by kurojack-jp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

git_log

Reads repository commit history—full SHA, author, ISO date, and subject—with optional path filters and commit limits for auditing or tracing changes.

Instructions

Read full commit SHA, author, ISO-strict date and subject separated by tabs. No approval window; client Host in both modes. Fixed Git never runs repository hooks/filters or configured programs. Maximum 2 processes, 15 seconds each, 64 KiB output. Sanitized errors; never auto-retry.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "git_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAbsolute repository directory within configured read roots, including read: folders; top must also be allowed.
limitNoNumber of commits, integer 1..200; default 20. Output over 64 KiB fails closed.
pathsNoOptional maximum 32 literal relative paths inside repository and read roots; no traversal, options, colon, NUL or newline.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does unusually well: it discloses the absence of an approval window, that Git hooks/filters/configured programs are not run, process and time limits (2 processes, 15 seconds each), a 64 KiB output ceiling, sanitized errors, and no auto-retry. Some phrases such as 'client Host in both modes' are cryptic, but the behavioral profile is far richer than typical.

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 front-loaded with the output shape and then lists operational constraints without filler. It is dense but clear overall; minor cryptic phrasing ('client Host in both modes') slightly reduces clarity.

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 a 3-parameter tool with a fully described schema and an output schema, the description supplies substantial behavioral context (limits, safety, error handling) and need not restate return values. The main remaining gap is selection guidance relative to sibling history tools.

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 the input schema already documents path, limit, and paths constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides; its field list describes output, not inputs.

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 first sentence specifies a read operation over commit data and names the exact fields returned (full SHA, author, ISO-strict date, subject), so an agent can identify it as a commit-history reader. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as git_show or git_diff, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose git_log over git_show, git_diff, or other history/inspection tools, nor any when-not condition. Usage is only implied by the read-commit wording, so it falls short of the minimum viable explicit guidance.

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