Git Commit Message Generator 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 generates a commit message but does not describe how it works (e.g., whether it uses AI, templates, or summaries), what output format to expect, or any constraints (e.g., error handling if no git changes exist). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes essential context (git changes, current directory). There is no wasted verbiage, 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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output, or error conditions. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully complete, but it meets minimum viability for a basic tool.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, which is efficient. A baseline score of 4 is applied for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary detail while matching the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Generate a commit message from the git changes in the current project directory.' It specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('commit message'), and explains the source of input ('git changes in the current project directory'). However, since there are no sibling tools, it cannot differentiate from alternatives, preventing a score of 5.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., being in a git repository), exclusions, or contextual cues. The absence of sibling tools means no explicit alternatives are named, but the description still lacks usage context beyond the basic operation.

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