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. While 'push changes' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't mention critical behaviors: it doesn't state that this requires network access, may fail due to conflicts, could overwrite remote changes, or has authentication/permission requirements. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 gets straight to the point: 'Push changes to remote repository.' Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary elaboration or repetition. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear purpose and good schema documentation.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, what the return values might be, or important behavioral constraints (like needing commits first). While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking.

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 all three parameters (remote, branch, setUpstream) well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'Push changes to remote repository' clearly states the verb ('push') and resource ('changes to remote repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like git_commit (which commits locally) or git_pull (which fetches from remote), but doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is specific enough to understand what the tool does without being tautological.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing committed changes first), when not to use it (e.g., if working directory is dirty), or how it relates to siblings like git_commit (which must precede pushing) or git_pull (which might be needed before pushing). The agent must 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.