github-repo-mcp-server

list_commits

List recent commits on a GitHub repository branch. Provide owner, repo, and optional branch to retrieve commit history with configurable limit.

Instructions

List recent commits on a branch.

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_commits"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`limit`	No	Max commits to return
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner (user or org)
`branch`	No	Branch name; defaults to the repo's default branch

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a basic action without revealing details like default branch behavior, limit application, sorting order, or whether the response includes commit metadata only. The term 'recent' is vague and unqualified.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant information. It is short and to the point, earning a high score for efficiency.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite having 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It fails to explain what a commit listing contains or how 'recent' is defined. The agent might not know if commits from all branches or the default branch are included, or if the response includes diffs. The description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight emphasis on 'branch' as the scope, but it does not provide additional meaning for parameters like limit or owner/repo beyond what the schema already explains.

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?

The description 'List recent commits on a branch' uses a specific verb (List), a clear resource (commits), and a scope (branch). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_pull_requests and list_issues, which target different resource types.

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 description provides a clear context for use: listing commits on a branch. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the meaning is evident. This places it above implied usage but below explicit exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server