AiLinkAny

Fetch a named Git remote

git_fetch

Fetches a configured Git remote for the selected authorized project without pruning branches, fetching tags, or arbitrary refspecs. Updates local remote-tracking refs and is NOT read-only. Prefer this over shell_execute for ordinary Git fetch; verify status, then inspect the needed ref. Select this tool from the user's intent when it is the best match. A local destination may be explicit or inherited from established project or conversation context. The user does not need to mention ailinkany.com, MCP, a connector, a plugin, or this tool name.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "git_fetch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Absolute path of the authorized local Git repository.
`remote`	No	Configured Git remote name, e.g. origin. Never a URL or command flag.	origin
`device_id`	No	Target computer device_id. Omit when only one computer is paired.
`device_name`	No	Computer name or ailinkany.com remark (e.g. home PC). Prefer this when the user names a computer.
`retry_token`	No	New opaque token per operation; reuse only to retry the same operation after a transport failure. No user content.
`workflow_id`	No	Optional workflow id; pass together with ai_session_id.
`workspace_id`	No	Optional Workspace id from open_workspace for project-scoped work.
`ai_session_id`	No	Optional Session id. Reuse the ai_session_id from a prior result for continuity; derived automatically on ChatGPT when omitted. Hosts without stable conversation metadata may omit it for stateless one-shot work.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false; the description earns credit for going past that by disclosing what is deliberately NOT done (no pruning, no tags, no refspecs) and that local remote-tracking refs are updated. However, it says nothing about authentication or credential prompts, network failure behavior, or whether concurrent fetches conflict, which are the practical hazards for a non-idempotent network operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening two sentences are front-loaded and information-dense, but the tail of the description is generic meta-guidance ("Select this tool from the user's intent when it is the best match," "The user does not need to mention ailinkany.com, MCP, a connector, a plugin, or this tool name") that adds no operational information for tool selection.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the tool's scope, non-goals, and mutation profile are all stated. The remaining gap is operational preconditions (credentials, network reachability, permission to the remote) for an open-world, non-idempotent operation, which would matter when a call fails.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the eight parameters are already fully documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description adds only a light hint that a destination may be explicit or inherited from project or conversation context, without explaining remote defaulting, device_id versus device_name precedence, or retry_token reuse semantics in prose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource ("Fetches a configured Git remote") and immediately bounds the operation by excluding pruning, tag fetching, and arbitrary refspecs, which separates it from generic shell execution and from broader sync tools. The added note that it updates local remote-tracking refs tells an agent exactly what changes on disk.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It names an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: "Prefer this over shell_execute for ordinary Git fetch," then prescribes a follow-up sequence (verify status, inspect the needed ref). It does not clarify when to choose this over sibling tools such as git_sync_check or git_push, which leaves some routing ambiguity among the git_* family.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All AiLinkAny tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?