Test whether git credentials are working by attempting ls-remote against the origin. Returns success/failure and remote refs count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| remoteName | No | Remote to test. Default origin. | origin |
| workingDirectory | No | Git repo path. Default current directory. | . |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes the operation as attempting ls-remote, which is read-only, and mentions return of success/failure and refs count. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it is mostly transparent though could explicitly state no side effects.
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 efficiently conveys purpose, mechanism, and output. No redundant information; every word earns its place.
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 key aspects for a simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema. Could briefly note that the operation is safe and non-destructive, but not essential.
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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (remoteName, workingDirectory) with defaults. Description adds no new parameter details beyond the schema, maintaining baseline 3 for 100% coverage.
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 action (test) and resource (git credentials), with specific mechanism (ls-remote against origin). Distinguishes from sibling tools like set_ssh or reset_login by focusing on verification rather than configuration.
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 when needing to verify credentials, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like show_diagnostic or show_remote. No when-not or prerequisites stated.
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.