Stage changes, commit with a message, and optionally push to remote. Returns commit SHA and push result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| files | No | Files to commit. Default empty (commits all changes). | |
| message | No | Commit message. | |
| pushToRemote | No | Push to remote after commit. Default false. | |
| workingDirectory | No | Git repo path. Default current directory. | . |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the main actions and return value, but does not mention potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., git repo), or error behavior. No annotations provided.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with main actions, no unnecessary words.
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?
Adequately covers the tool's purpose and return value given the parameter set and lack of output schema. Could mention handling of unstaged files or potential conflicts.
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% with descriptive defaults and explanations. The description text does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
Clearly states it stages, commits, and optionally pushes, and returns commit SHA and push result. Distinguishes from siblings like 'push' which only pushes.
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?
Implicitly suggests usage for committing changes but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like 'push' or 'new_work_branch'.
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.