git_logRetrieve recent Git commits from a repository to review change history and identify recent modifications.
Show recent commits.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "git_log"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | . |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Show' weakly implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, but nothing is said about how many commits are returned, ordering, truncation, or error behavior for non-repo directories.
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 zero filler, which is structurally clean, but the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no wasted wording, yet the one sentence does too little work.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter mean the description is the only source of information, and it supplies almost none. For a tool an agent will need to call with a specific working directory and interpret unbounded output, this is inadequate.
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% and the single parameter `cwd` is never mentioned in the description, so its meaning (working directory in which to run the log) and default are left entirely unexplained. The description adds no semantic value over the bare schema.
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 verb 'Show' plus resource 'commits' identifies the tool's basic function and distinguishes it implicitly from siblings like git_diff and git_status. However, 'recent' is undefined — no count, range, or format — so an agent cannot tell what it will actually get back.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus git_diff, git_status, or grep for history inspection, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer that this is the history-viewing option from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.