Retrieve recent git commits to track code changes. Supports filtering by commit count and optionally includes diff content for analysis.
Get recent git changes
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of commits to check | |
| include_diff | No | Whether to include the diff content |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It does not disclose scope ('recent' = how far back?), whether diffs are included, whether it is read-only, or what the return shape looks like. Only the word 'git' hints at behavior.
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 four-word sentence, front-loaded and undeniably concise. It is arguably too terse to carry meaning, but as conciseness goes it wastes nothing.
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 git-inspection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the retrieval scope and whether it is safe/read-only. It leaves both unaddressed, and gives no hint about the sibling relationship that would make this tool's role obvious.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (limit, include_diff) with defaults. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given full schema coverage — baseline 3.
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?
Clear verb+resource ('Get recent git changes') and the tool is distinguishable from siblings by inspection (generate_docs_for_changes and apply_doc_update are about docs, this is about retrieving changes). However the description doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, and 'recent' is undefined without opening the schema.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, no conditions. An agent must infer that this is the retrieval step that feeds generate_docs_for_changes, but that relationship is never stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.