Git MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List all branches' but doesn't specify whether this includes local, remote, or both by default, nor does it describe output format, pagination, or error conditions. The single parameter 'remote' hints at some behavior, but the description itself lacks critical details for safe and effective use.

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 extremely concise at three words, front-loading the core action ('List all branches') with zero wasted text. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'branches' means in context (e.g., Git branches), how results are returned, or any limitations. For a tool with no annotations or output schema, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it correctly.

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%, with the parameter 'remote' fully documented in the schema as 'Include remote branches' with a default of false. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not additive 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all branches'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'git_current_branch' or 'git_status', which also provide branch-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score for sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'git_current_branch' (which shows only the current branch) or 'git_status' (which includes branch info in a broader context). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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