List all tags/releases in the repository, newest first. Returns tag names, target SHAs, and annotation messages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workingDirectory | No | Git repo path. Default current directory. | . |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'newest first' and return values but doesn't disclose whether it fetches from remote or only local, or any side effects. Adequate but missing some behavioral context.
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 with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and order, second describes return values. Efficient and well-structured.
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?
No output schema, but description explains return values (tag names, target SHAs, annotation messages). It covers the main behavior. Could mention pagination or limits, but for a simple list tool, it's fairly complete.
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?
The single parameter 'workingDirectory' has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 verb 'list', the resource 'tags/releases', ordering 'newest first', and what it returns (tag names, target SHAs, annotation messages). It distinguishes from sibling tools like show_history or show_change by focusing specifically on releases/tags.
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 over siblings. The description implies it's for listing releases or tags, but doesn't mention when to avoid it or alternatives. Given many sibling show commands, some direction would help.
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.