GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_commit_list

Read-only

List GitFlic project commits from the default or specified branch, with filters for author, message, sort order, and limit to review recent changes.

Instructions

List commits (default branch or --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": {
      "project": "<project>"
    },
    "name": "gitflic_commit_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Free-text filter over the commit message.
`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.
`sort`	No	Sort field; prefix '-' for descending.
`limit`	No	Return at most N (e.g. last 10 commits).
`author`	No	Keep only commits by this author.
`branch`	No
`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

C2.4/5.0

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 only the default-branch default, and says nothing about pagination, ordering defaults, the slim-vs-raw response behavior, or the fact that the '--branch' style notation is a CLI-ism rather than the actual 'branch' parameter.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single short sentence with no wasted prose, but that brevity comes at the cost of substance. The '--branch' notation is imprecise and could confuse an agent into thinking a CLI flag is expected.

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 tool with 8 parameters, filtering options, a raw/slim response toggle, and no output schema, a one-line description is far too thin. An agent cannot learn from it how to shape queries or what the response will contain.

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 8 parameters and only 75% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it mentions only the branch parameter (and in a misleading '--branch' CLI form). The filter parameters (q, author, sort, limit, fields, raw) receive no explanation in the description beyond what the schema already says.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('List commits') and notes a scope constraint (default branch or a specific branch). However, it does not differentiate this listing tool from siblings such as gitflic_commit_get, gitflic_commit_files, or gitflic_commit_compare, so the agent must infer the 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?

The only usage hint is implicit: it lists on the default branch unless a branch is given. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over commit_get or commit_compare, no prerequisites, and no mention of when filters should be applied.

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

Deploy Server