Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cohors

cohors

by rushirb2001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

Standup

standup
Read-onlyIdempotent

Collects your commits across every repository for a chosen day or week, groups them by repo, and generates a ready-to-paste markdown digest for status updates and weekly summaries.

Instructions

What the user committed across every repo, for a standup or a status update: their commits (matched by git user.email) in the window, grouped by repo with the most active first, plus a ready-to-paste markdown digest. Use for "what did I do today / this week", "write my standup", or a weekly summary; do NOT run git log in each repo. window is "today" or "week" (default week).

Tool call template

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": "standup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
windowNoWhich window to report (default week).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is free to add real behavioral detail: commits are matched by git user.email, results are grouped by repo ordered by activity, and a ready-to-paste markdown digest is included. It stops short of noting things like empty-window behavior or commit-volume limits, but adds solid value beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then usage, then the parameter caveat — a sensible order. The opening sentence is dense with parenthetical asides, but every clause carries information and nothing is filler.

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?

With one optional enum parameter, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description still explains the grouping, ordering, and digest so an agent knows what comes back. Only minor gaps remain, such as what an empty window yields.

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 single window parameter already documents its enum and default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the window values and default and clarifies that the window bounds the commit range, which is marginal added meaning — baseline 3.

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: it reports the user's own commits (matched by git user.email) across every repo for a window, grouped by repo with most active first, plus a markdown digest. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from generic repo/commit tools like changes, run, or push.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit triggers — "what did I do today / this week", "write my standup", weekly summary — and an explicit prohibition: do NOT run git log in each repo. The positive and negative cases are both stated, leaving little to infer.

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