Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
engineering-standards

engineering-standards

by rajgurung
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

Review Commit Message

review_commit_message

Validate commit messages against team conventions to ensure imperative mood, proper subject length, and correct structure.

Instructions

Check if a commit message follows conventions (imperative mood, subject length, structure)

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": {
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "review_commit_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYesThe commit message to review

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states what is checked and implies a read-only validation operation, but it does not disclose what the tool returns—whether it is a boolean, a list of violations, or a score—or how failures are reported.

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?

A single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and includes the most important details (the conventions being checked). No wasted words or redundant restatement of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter validation tool, the description covers the essential check dimensions and is reasonably complete. However, the absence of an output schema and annotations means return behavior and usage context remain underspecified, leaving an agent to guess how to interpret the result.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema already describes it as 'The commit message to review' with 100% coverage. The description adds no meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Check if') and resource ('a commit message'), and enumerates the specific conventions checked: imperative mood, subject length, and structure. It distinguishes itself from review_branch_name by targeting commit messages, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with staff_engineer_review.

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 the tool should be used when validating a commit message against conventions. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not mention alternatives such as review_branch_name or staff_engineer_review.

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