GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_commit_get

Read-only

Retrieves a single GitFlic commit by project and hash, returning selected or raw commit details for inspection, auditing, and debugging.

Instructions

Get one commit by hash.

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_get"
  }
}

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 elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond them: it does not mention the default slimmed response, the raw/fields escape hatches, or what happens when a hash is not found. Note that idempotentHint=false on a pure read is unusual, but the description does not contradict it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is efficient rather than padded, though its brevity leaves the reader with no elaboration of scope or return behavior.

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 four-parameter lookup with no output schema, the agent needs to know what the default response looks like, why 'raw' and 'fields' exist, and what 'project' accepts. None of that appears in the description, leaving the two required parameters effectively undocumented.

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?

Only the 'hash' parameter gains any meaning from the description; 'project', which is required, is never explained, and neither is how 'fields' interacts with the default slim response. With schema description coverage at 50%, the description needed to compensate for the undocumented required parameters and does not.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Get one commit") and a lookup key ("by hash"), which is unambiguous. It does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as gitflic_commit_files, gitflic_commit_list, or gitflic_commit_compare, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the sibling commit tools or versus branch/tag lookups, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid project reference. The only implied usage is 'you have a hash and want that commit.'

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

Deploy Server