Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GitPilot MCP

GitPilot MCP

by Divyanshu-hash
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

check_for_conflicts

Checks if a repository has merge conflicts with its upstream base branch, enabling proactive conflict resolution before merging.

Instructions

Check if there are merge conflicts with upstream.

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": {
      "repo_path": "<repo_path>"
    },
    "name": "check_for_conflicts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repo_pathYes
baseNomain

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It implies read-only operation but does not state side effects, response format, or how conflicts are reported. Output schema exists but is not described.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Single sentence is concise but lacks essential details. It is under-specified rather than efficiently packed.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite having an output schema and 2 parameters, the description provides insufficient context. It does not explain what 'conflicts' means, how to interpret results, or error conditions.

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

Parameters1/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, description adds no meaning to `repo_path` or `base`. Parameters are completely unexplained beyond schema field names.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a verb ('Check') and a clear resource ('merge conflicts with upstream'), distinguishing it from siblings like `sync_with_upstream` which likely performs the merge. However, 'upstream' is vague without specifying which remote or branch.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use versus alternatives such as `sync_with_upstream`. The description does not mention prerequisites or context needed before calling.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools