Retrieve a commit's body, originating pull request, and linked issues to understand the rationale behind a code change.
Commit body + the PR it came from (title, body, url) + linked issues (Fixes/Closes/Resolves #N).
Returns: {body: str, pr: {number, title, body, url} | null, linked_issues: [...]}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | ||
| commit_hash | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It does disclose that pr can be null and shows the return shape, but it does not address side-effect safety, auth/network assumptions, or what happens when the commit is not found. Nothing contradicts the annotations because none were provided.
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?
The description is two short lines with no fluff and the return type is front-loaded. The first fragment is telegraphic ('Commit body + ...'), but the information density is high.
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 two-parameter read tool, the return shape and nullable PR are useful. Still, with no output schema and no annotations, the absence of parameter formats and error/edge-case behavior leaves an agent with meaningful unknowns.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not: repo and commit_hash are never explained, and no format is given (e.g., full SHA vs short SHA, owner/repo form for repo). The parameter names are guessable, but the description adds no parameter-specific meaning.
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?
The description clearly specifies the resource (commit) and the data returned: commit body, originating PR metadata, and linked issues. It is distinct from sibling analysis tools like get_test_impact or get_risk_score, though it omits an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch'.
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 makes the intended use obvious—any agent wanting commit body, PR context, or linked issues—but it never states when not to use it or names an alternative. With siblings like analyze and get_blast_radius around, explicit routing guidance would be valuable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.