repository_manager_pre_commit_projectsRun pre-commit commands for all Git projects in parallel, optionally selecting projects or enabling autoupdate, and return each project's Git result.
Execute pre-commit commands for all projects in parallel.
Returns: List[GitResult]: A list of GitResult objects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run | No | ||
| projects | No | ||
| autoupdate | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. However, the description never says what pre-commit actually does to the workspace (running hooks can modify files, the 'run'/'autoupdate' flags hint at mutation), nor what authentication or environment preconditions apply. For a mutation tool with three undocumented flags, this is a significant gap.
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?
Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded, so there is no waste. However, brevity here reflects under-specification rather than tight writing: the entire parameter surface and behavioral posture are left unexplained.
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?
A mutation tool with three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and only generic annotations. The description covers the verb and scope but omits parameter meanings, mutation effects on the workspace, and any selection criteria relative to its many commit/pre-commit siblings.
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 0% for three parameters, so the schema documents nothing. The description mentions 'all projects' (hinting at the projects filter) but says nothing about 'run' or 'autoupdate', and the return-type note addresses output, not inputs. With low coverage the description needed to compensate and does not.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Execute pre-commit commands') and adds a distinguishing scope detail ('for all projects in parallel'), which separates it from the singular sibling repository_manager_pre_commit. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the plural scope does the differentiation work.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus repository_manager_pre_commit, rm_git_pre_commit, or repository_manager_validate_single_project. The agent must infer that 'all projects' means this is the bulk variant, with no stated prerequisites or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.