Fetch recent git commit history for a repository inside an allowed root to review changes and debug issues locally.
Read recent git commits for a repository inside an allowed root.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| agent | No | Optional existing runtime binding for monitor attribution; no extra handshake. | |
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns some credit for the 'inside an allowed root' sandbox constraint, but says nothing about result ordering, backfill depth, or what happens when path is outside the root.
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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though the terseness is partly why parameter and usage detail is missing.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with no output schema, the essentials are present, and return values need not be explained. However, with two undocumented parameters and no indication of output shape or ordering, the definition is only minimally sufficient.
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 only 33% — the agent object is documented, but the required 'path' and the 'limit' parameter (default 15, max 100) are not explained anywhere. The description mentions 'repository' without clarifying how path resolves to one, and ignores limit entirely, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb (Read) plus resource (recent git commits) and scope (repository inside an allowed root). It is clearly distinct from git_status and git_diff in intent, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the distinction.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to prefer this over git_status, git_diff, or command_run with a raw git command. The implicit usage (inspecting commit history) is self-evident from the name, but no conditions or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.