Skip to main content
Glama

Symvanta

by com.symvanta

history

Read-onlyIdempotent

Indexed commit history. Ops:

  • commits: recent commits (metadata + file list); <=200/call, default 50. With a clone prefer git log.

  • commit: one commit by sha with its diff summary (added/modified/deleted/renamed); null if outside the indexed window.

  • recently_changed: files ranked by change frequency in the indexed window ("what's hot").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
opYescommits: recent commits (metadata + file list). commit: one commit in detail. recently_changed: most-changed files over the window.
shaNoop:commit. The commit to read (7-64 hex).
pathNoRestrict to commits touching this repo-relative path.
limitNoMax rows (default 50, max 200).
sinceNoISO datetime lower bound.
untilNoISO datetime upper bound.
authorNoFilter by author name or email substring.
feedbackNoOptional: report how a previous answer worked out; piggybacks on any call.
projectIdNoProject id from init/list_projects. Omit for the active project.
repositoryNoRepository full name, e.g. "owner/repo". Omit when the project has one repository.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to repeat safety semantics. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the indexed-window limitation, the <=200/default 50 row cap, and the null result for commits outside the window.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact, scannable, and front-loaded with the core resource. The bullet-per-operation structure groups related information cleanly, and every sentence earns its place without filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's multi-op design and lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently summarizes what each operation returns: metadata with file lists, diff summaries, and ranked files. Combined with 100% schema parameter coverage and the annotations, an agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description is not required to re-explain each parameter. It still adds value by tying each op to its output semantics, noting the default/max limit, and clarifying the null behavior for unknown SHAs. This goes beyond what the raw schema descriptions provide.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with 'Indexed commit history' and then enumerates three concrete operations, making it immediately clear what the tool does and what resource it operates on. It is unambiguous and distinct from raw git log, so an agent can understand the tool's role without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The commits bullet explicitly says 'With a clone prefer git log,' giving an actionable alternative and the condition under which it should be chosen. The commit and recently_changed bullets also clarify result behavior, helping the agent decide when this indexed-history tool is appropriate.

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

All Symvanta toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools generally target distinct operations—repository attachment, symbol resolution, graph traversal, source access, indexing health—and the detailed routing notes reduce ambiguity. A few pairs still overlap in intent (quick_lookup vs locate symbol, context vs ask_codebase), so it is not perfectly unambiguous.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and readable, but the set mixes verb_noun patterns like add_repository and list_projects with single-word nouns/verbs like context, history, map, relate, and source, plus one acronym (adr). There is no predictable convention across the full surface, though individual names are clear.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools is at the high end for a single MCP server and falls in the 'feels heavy' range. The breadth is justified by the code-intelligence/query domain, but the selection surface is large for an agent to navigate efficiently.

Completeness4/5

The code indexing, search, graph query, source access, history, ADR, test lookup, and scope estimation needs are well covered. Minor gaps remain—no detach/remove repository, no ADR content editing, and source access is gated by an add-on—but these are workable.

Resources