git_blameIdentify who last changed specific lines in a workspace file and retrieve commit metadata for a given revision or line range.
Return bounded git blame metadata for a workspace file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rev | No | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| end_line | No | ||
| max_lines | No | ||
| start_line | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| path | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| lines | No | ||
| warnings | No | ||
| truncated | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The word 'bounded' hints that output is truncated, but the description never explains the default cap (max_lines=200), the 1000 ceiling, or what happens when the range is exceeded.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the five-parameter surface it must support.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with five undocumented parameters and no usage context, the description leaves the agent guessing about line-range and revision semantics on a tool whose whole purpose is targeted line attribution.
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 0% across five parameters, so nothing documents rev, start_line, end_line, or max_lines. The description's only nod to parameters is the vague adjective 'bounded', which does not tell an agent that max_lines defaults to 200 or that start/end_line are 1-based.
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?
States a specific verb (blame) and resource (workspace file) with a useful scope qualifier ('bounded'). It is distinguishable from git_log/git_show, though the description never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary.
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 guidance on when to reach for blame versus git_log, git_show, or git_diff. An agent must infer the use case from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.