git_logRetrieve recent Git commits with bounded structured metadata to review changes, filter by ref or path, and limit history depth.
Return recent git commits with bounded structured metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | HEAD | |
| path | No | . | |
| skip | No | ||
| max_count | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| commits | No | ||
| is_repo | 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 a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only that results are 'bounded' (the max_count cap of 100) and structured, which is modest extra context beyond the structured fields.
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 padding, which is appropriately sized for the tool. It loses a point only because 'bounded structured metadata' spends words without conveying real meaning.
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 four undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage and no usage context against four sibling git tools, the description is too thin for a multi-parameter history query.
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% for four parameters, so the description must carry the load, and it does not: ref, path, and skip are never mentioned or explained, and only 'recent'/'bounded' loosely gestures at max_count and skip. No format, default, or range semantics are added.
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 verb ('Return') and resource ('git commits'), which distinguishes it at a high level from git_status/git_diff. But 'bounded structured metadata' is vague filler that does not say what a commit record actually contains, and nothing separates it from git_show (single commit) or git_blame.
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 when-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives, despite four closely related git siblings (git_show, git_blame, git_diff, git_status). An agent must infer from the name alone that this returns a history listing rather than a single commit or a diff.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.