Stage selected files for commit by providing paths relative to ~/src/user, preparing them for the next Git commit.
Stage files for commit
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| files | Yes | Array of file paths to stage (relative to ~/src/user) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation of the git index but does not disclose whether it requires a git repository, whether it stages all changes or only specified paths, or what permissions or side effects are involved.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded phrase with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's narrow 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 one-parameter git staging tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no mention of repository requirements or index side effects, it leaves some behavioral context unstated.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameter already documents that it accepts an array of file paths relative to '~/src/user'. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Stage files') that clearly identifies the git operation. It differentiates itself from siblings like git_commit and git_status implicitly, though it never names an alternative to route against.
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?
The description says what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus git_commit, git_status, or other git tools. The closest signal is that staging precedes committing, but this is left for the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.