GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_commit_files

Read-only

List the files changed by a specific commit in a GitFlic project, so you can inspect what each commit touched without opening the repository.

Instructions

List files touched by a commit.

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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "hash": "<hash>"
    },
    "name": "gitflic_commit_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`raw`	No	Return the full, un-slimmed GitFlic response for THIS call (no token compression). Use when the default slim view dropped a field you need.
`hash`	Yes
`fields`	No	Return only these top-level fields (plus id keys), narrowing the response further.
`project`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: no mention of pagination, result ordering, truncation, or how the slim/raw response modes affect what is returned. For a tool whose output can be narrowed by the 'raw' and 'fields' parameters, that silence is a real gap.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero padding and no redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.

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?

For a simple read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description still leaves the agent guessing about return shape, whether renames/deletes are included, and what the required 'project'/'hash' identifiers expect. The structured fields carry most of the weight, but the prose does not fill the remaining gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description needs to compensate, but it mentions no parameters at all. The undocumented 'project' and 'hash' parameters—the two required ones—carry no meaning from the prose, and the interaction between the slim default and the 'raw'/'fields' overrides is left entirely to the schema.

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?

"List files touched by a commit" states a specific verb (List) and resource (files of a commit), which is distinguishable from the metadata-oriented gitflic_commit_get or the diff-oriented gitflic_commit_compare. It is not a tautology of the name, but it never names a sibling or scope boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. An agent must infer from the sentence alone whether to call this versus gitflic_commit_get or gitflic_commit_compare, and no prerequisites (project scope, commit hash source) are given.

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

Deploy Server