Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GitHub + Linear Dev Workflows

GitHub + Linear Dev Workflows

by r28ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

github_git_refs_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a Git branch or tag reference and the commit SHA it points to, so you can read a branch's current head before building on it. Provide owner, repo, and ref (heads/main or tags/v1.0).

Instructions

Get a reference and the commit SHA it points at — how you read a branch's current head before building on it. ref is heads/main or tags/v1.0, without the refs/ prefix.

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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "ref": "<ref>"
    },
    "name": "github_git_refs_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refYesThe Git reference, formatted as `heads/BRANCH_NAME` for a branch or `tags/TAG_NAME` for a tag. Without the `refs/` prefix.
repoYesThe name of the repository without the `.git` extension. The name is not case sensitive.
ownerYesThe account owner of the repository. The name is not case sensitive.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds beyond them by disclosing what is actually returned (the commit SHA the ref points at), which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, with the core action and return value front-loaded before the format detail. Nothing is padding and 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?

For a simple read tool with a fully documented 3-parameter schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete, and it compensates for the absent output schema by naming the returned SHA. Minor gap: it does not note error behavior for nonexistent refs.

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% and the schema already documents ref, repo and owner identifiers. The description's format examples (heads/main, tags/v1.0, no refs/ prefix) duplicate what the schema says, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured field. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a reference and the commit SHA it points at') and even names the return value. It reads clearly against the sibling github_git_refs_create, since 'get' vs 'create' is unambiguous without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The clause 'how you read a branch's current head before building on it' gives a concrete use context an agent can match to intent. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not guide.

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