Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
git-surgeon-mcp

git-surgeon-mcp

by mustafatekiinn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Reword Commit

git_reword_commit

Rewrites the message of any Git commit using non-interactive rebase or amend for HEAD, requiring a clean working directory.

Instructions

Updates the message of a specific commit in history. If it is the latest commit (HEAD), uses git commit --amend. Otherwise performs a fully non-interactive rebase sequence (no editor prompts). Requires a clean working directory. Rewrites history for the target commit and everything after it.

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": {
      "commit_hash": "<commit_hash>",
      "new_message": "<new_message>"
    },
    "name": "git_reword_commit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commit_hashYesThe hash (full or abbreviated, min 4 hex chars) of the commit to reword.
new_messageYesThe replacement commit message.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: mentions non-interactive rebase, no editor prompts, rewrites history for the target commit and everything after. Adequately discloses side effects and prerequisites.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 (2 params, no output schema), the description covers prerequisites, behavior, and consequences. It is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for commit_hash and new_message.

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?

Clearly states the tool 'updates the message of a specific commit' and distinguishes between HEAD and non-HEAD cases. Specifies the method (amend vs. rebase). Differentiates from siblings by naming sibling tools in context.

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?

Provides a prerequisite ('requires a clean working directory') but does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use this tool. The context lists sibling tools, but the description itself offers no guidance on 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