Create an annotated git tag and push it to the remote. Returns the tag name and target commit SHA.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | No | Annotation message for the tag. | |
| tagName | No | Tag name, e.g. v1.2.0. | |
| remoteName | No | Remote to push to. Default origin. | origin |
| workingDirectory | No | Git repo path. Default current directory. | . |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses core behavior (create and push tag) and return values. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Lacks details on side effects like overwriting existing tags or failure scenarios.
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?
Two succinct sentences with no filler. Critical information front-loaded.
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?
Given 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and return. Lacks details on error handling or conflict resolution, but adequate for a straightforward tool.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond what schema already provides. Returns mention is helpful but not about parameters.
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?
The description clearly states 'Create an annotated git tag and push it to the remote,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like show_releases (list only) and new_work_branch (branch vs tag).
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?
Implied usage for creating and pushing a tag, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of prerequisites like existing Git repo or remote configuration.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Even similar tools like 'undo_changes' and 'restore_file' differ in scope (all vs single file), and 'find_changes' vs 'show_change' list files vs show diffs. No two tools overlap ambiguously.
All tool names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern. While verbs are not perfectly uniform (e.g., 'get_vault_status' vs 'show_history'), the naming is consistent and predictable, with no mixed camelCase or confusing conventions.
22 tools is on the higher side but appropriate for a comprehensive Git server covering branch management, commits, pushes, credentials, diagnostics, and more. The number is manageable and each tool serves a distinct function.
The tool set covers essential operations but has notable gaps: there's no branch listing, pull/merge, or stash functionality. Agents may encounter dead ends when needing these operations, though core workflows like commit and push are well supported.