Git MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a commit but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it requires authentication, what happens if files aren't staged, error conditions, or the response format. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and easy to parse, making it highly concise 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?

Given the complexity of a Git commit operation, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain behavioral traits, error handling, or dependencies on other tools like 'git_add', leaving the agent with incomplete information for proper usage.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'message and files' but doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema already documents, such as file path formats or message conventions, so it meets the baseline.

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 action ('Create a new commit') and specifies the key inputs ('with the specified message and files'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'git_add' or 'git_staged_changes', which also involve commit-related operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites like staging files first or clarify when to use 'git_add' before committing. Without such context, the agent might misuse it, leading to a low score.

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