Send already-committed work to the remote without making a new commit. Pushes the current branch; on a branch's first push, sets the remote branch as its upstream automatically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| remoteName | No | Remote name. Default origin. | origin |
| workingDirectory | No | Git repo path. Default current directory. | . |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It correctly states the tool does not create a new commit, pushes the current branch, and sets upstream on first push. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., needing remote existence, authentication, or that it's a safe non-destructive operation).
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 sentences, no fluff, clear and front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose.
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?
For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It could mention error conditions or the need for a remote to exist, but overall it provides sufficient context for its complexity.
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 descriptions already cover 100% of parameters (remoteName, workingDirectory) with defaults and short explanations. The tool description adds no additional semantics for these parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 the tool sends already-committed work to the remote without making a new commit, pushes the current branch, and automatically sets upstream on first push. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'save_work' (which would commit locally) and 'new_release' (tagging).
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'save_work' or 'find_changes'. The description implies usage after committing, but does not state prerequisites or scenarios where other tools are preferable.
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.