Skip to main content
Glama
mybolide

MCP Probe Kit

by mybolide
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

git_work_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyze Git diff to generate concise daily or periodic work reports. Automatically reads commits, uses AI to extract meaningful work content, and outputs bullet points of changes and effects.

Instructions

基于 Git diff 分析生成工作报告（日报/周期报）

核心功能：

  • 支持日报模式（单个日期）和周期报模式（日期范围）

  • 自动读取指定日期的所有 Git 提交

  • 对每个提交执行 git show 获取完整 diff

  • 使用 AI 分析 diff 内容提取实际工作内容

输出格式：

  • 只输出「工作内容」部分

  • 每条以 - 开头，中文，简洁专业

  • 格式：做了什么 + 改了哪里/达到什么效果

  • 不输出：提交哈希、文件列表、统计数据、风险总结

使用示例：

  • 日报：git_work_report --date 2026-1-27

  • 周期报：git_work_report --start_date 2026-2-1 --end_date 2026-2-6

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNo单个日期，格式 YYYY-MM-DD（日报模式）
end_dateNo结束日期，格式 YYYY-MM-DD（周期报模式）
start_dateNo起始日期，格式 YYYY-MM-DD（周期报模式）
output_fileNo可选，输出文件路径
project_rootNo目标 Git 仓库根目录或其子目录；省略时按当前 MCP 工作区解析

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv4.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_root
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "目标 Git 仓库根目录或其子目录；省略时按当前 MCP 工作区解析",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv3.0.16

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it reads Git diffs, uses AI to analyze content, and outputs only the 'work content' section. The annotations confirm readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which aligns with the read-only behavior described. The description adds details about the output format and what is excluded, going beyond annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections for core functionality, output format, and usage examples. It is concise for the amount of information conveyed, though some redundancy exists (e.g., both title and description mention 'Git 工作报告'). Each section adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 moderate complexity, 5 parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is complete. It explains the tool's mechanism, output format, and usage, leaving no obvious gaps for an agent to misinterpret. The lack of output schema is compensated by the explicit output format rules.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the date/start_date/end_date parameters in natural language with usage examples, clarifying the two modes. It also explains project_root's fallback behavior ('按当前 MCP 工作区解析'), which is not in the schema description.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: generating work reports from Git diff analysis, for daily and periodic modes. It explicitly states the verb '生成' (generate) and the resource '工作报告' (work report), distinguishing it from siblings like 'gencommit' or 'code_review' which are related but different operations.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit usage contexts: daily mode (single date) and periodic mode (date range), with concrete examples. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare to alternatives like 'gencommit' for commit messages, though the context is clear from the sibling list.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mybolide/mcp-probe-kit'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server