Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GitPilot MCP

GitPilot MCP

by Divyanshu-hash
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

sync_with_upstream

Synchronize a local fork with the upstream repository to incorporate new commits and resolve divergences, keeping your fork aligned.

Instructions

Sync local fork with upstream repository.

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>",
      "upstream_repo": "<upstream_repo>"
    },
    "name": "sync_with_upstream"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repo_pathYes
upstream_repoYes
baseNomain

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the high-level action, omitting details like whether it fetches, merges, handles conflicts, or requires permissions. This is insufficient for safe usage.

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?

While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concisely complete. It lacks necessary detail and does not efficiently convey all needed information.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to provide enough context about the tool's behavior, side effects, or parameter details. The agent cannot invoke it correctly without guessing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It does not explain the meaning of repo_path, upstream_repo, or base, leaving the agent without crucial context.

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 clearly states it syncs a local fork with an upstream repository, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like fork_repo or clone_repo, but could be more precise about the sync direction (fetch/merge versus push).

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like clone_repo, fork_repo, or apply_patch, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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