Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Sora Commander

Sora Commander

by kurojack-jp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

git_show

Read a commit stat or patch, or a specific file at a revision, while skipping protected file patches and returning paged output with sanitized errors.

Instructions

Read a commit stat/patch or rev:file, omitting protected file patches. No approval window; client Host in both modes. Fixed Git never runs repository hooks/filters or configured programs. Maximum 3 processes, 15 seconds each; content pages <=64 KiB with next_offset. 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>",
      "rev": "<rev>"
    },
    "name": "git_show"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
revYesRevision: 1..200 ASCII letters/digits or ._/@^~-; no leading -, .. or colon.
fileNoOptional literal relative file, maximum 4096 characters, inside repository and read roots; protected names refused.
pathYesAbsolute repository directory within configured read roots, including read: folders; top must also be allowed.
offsetNoByte cursor 0..268435456 from next_offset; 64 KiB pages. Repository changes between calls can change pages.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: no approval window, hooks/filters/configured programs never run, max 3 processes at 15s each, 64 KiB pages with next_offset, sanitized errors, and no auto-retry. It stops short of stating read-only safety explicitly or any permission/auth requirements beyond what the schema implies.

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 content is front-loaded — mode of operation first, then behavioral guarantees and limits — with no filler sentences. The telegraphic, semicolon-chained style is dense but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the operational envelope (process limits, timeouts, pagination, error handling, no hooks) well. The main gap is the absence of any guidance about how this differs from git_diff and git_log for an agent choosing among them.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds modest value by framing the "rev:file" mode pairing of rev and file and by tying 64 KiB pages and next_offset to the offset cursor, but it repeats rather than extends the schema's detail.

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?

"Read a commit stat/patch or rev:file" gives a specific verb and clearly names the two modes of operation, so an agent knows it retrieves commit content or a file at a revision. It does not name a sibling (e.g. git_diff or git_log) to contrast against, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no statement of when to prefer git_diff or git_log over this tool. The closest signals are implicit ("omitting protected file patches", "never auto-retry"), which describe behavior rather than tool selection.

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