io.github.neogeweb3/code-health-suite

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_git_audit_score

Audit recent commits in a git repository to receive an aggregate score, grade, commit count, and security summary. Quickly assess code health and identify potential issues.

Instructions

Get a quick overall grade and score for recent commits in a repo. Returns the aggregate score, grade, commit count, and security summary.

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": {
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "get_git_audit_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes	Path to the git repository.
`commits`	No	Number of recent commits to audit (default: 10).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.1Aug 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the output (aggregate score, grade, commit count, security summary) but does not mention any potential side effects, limitations, or dependencies. It appears read-only but this is not explicitly disclosed.

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 concise, using two straightforward sentences with no unnecessary details or repetition. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters, the description provides sufficient context about its purpose and return values. It does not explain how the score is calculated or what 'security summary' entails, but that may be acceptable for a quick-audit tool. Overall, it is almost complete.

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?

The input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (repo path and number of commits). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already covers, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 that the tool gets a quick overall grade and score for recent commits in a repo, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on other aspects like complexity or security.

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 implies usage for quick overall scoring but does not explicitly compare with alternative tools like full_health_check or other score-specific tools. No clear guidance on when to prefer this tool over others.

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