Fetch Git pre-push attempt records for a specified local calendar date to review daily development activity. Results indicate attempts, not confirmed pushes.
Read Git pre-push attempts for a local calendar date. Results are attempts, not proof that pushes succeeded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and the description is consistent with that. It goes beyond the annotation with a genuinely useful caveat: "Results are attempts, not proof that pushes succeeded," which tells the agent the data is unreliable for success claims, plus the "local calendar date" scoping that implies timezone handling rather than UTC.
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 sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the reliability caveat placed immediately after. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.
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?
For a one-parameter read with no output schema, the description supplies the essential semantics: what is counted, the date interpretation, and the reliability limit on results. Only the date string format and the rough shape of the returned records are left unstated.
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 coverage is 0% for the single `date` parameter, so the description carries the burden and does add timezone semantics ("local calendar date"). It stops short of specifying the accepted string format (e.g. YYYY-MM-DD) or what happens on an invalid/ambiguous date, so compensation is partial.
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 ("Read Git pre-push attempts") scoped to "a local calendar date," which no sibling tool touches — the siblings are all draft and publication tools, so the domain is unambiguous. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is only implied by the description of what the tool reads; there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the 14 siblings. Since no sibling overlaps this domain, the lack of routing guidance is low-risk, but it is still absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.