MCP Git Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools are mostly distinct, but there is significant overlap in the diff tools (git_diff, git_diff_branches, git_diff_staged, git_diff_unstaged) which could cause confusion, and the GitHub PR tools (github_get_pr_checks, github_get_pr_status) have unclear boundaries. However, descriptions help clarify some differences.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with prefixes (git_ or github_), but there are minor deviations like 'git_create_branch' (verb_noun_noun) and 'github_get_failing_jobs' (verb_adjective_noun) that break the pattern slightly. Overall, the naming is readable and predictable.
Tool Count3/5
With 22 tools, this is borderline heavy for a Git server, as it combines core Git operations with GitHub-specific features, making it feel somewhat overloaded. The count is reasonable but could be streamlined for better focus.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers core Git workflows (init, add, commit, push, pull, branch, diff, log) and GitHub PR/CI features well, with no major gaps. Minor gaps include missing tools for merging or rebasing, but agents can work around this using existing commands.
Average 2.8/5 across 22 of 22 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 15 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
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. 'Shows' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify output format (e.g., text, structured data), pagination behavior (handled by max_count default), or potential side effects (e.g., if it requires network access for remote repos). This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Shows the commit logs') that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool, though it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.
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?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, output expectations, or behavioral nuances. While it states the core purpose, it lacks details needed for effective use, especially compared to sibling tools in a Git context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what parameters like 'format', 'graph', or 'oneline' do, their expected values, or how 'repo_path' is used. With 5 parameters (1 required) and no schema descriptions, this is inadequate, though it slightly avoids a score of 1 by not being misleading.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Shows the commit logs' clearly states the verb ('shows') and resource ('commit logs'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'commit logs' entail (e.g., history, metadata) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like git_show or git_diff, which also display commit-related information.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain when git_log is preferable over git_show for viewing commit details or how it differs from git_status for repository state. The description offers no context about prerequisites, such as needing an initialized repository.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Switches branches' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it requires a clean working directory, what happens to uncommitted changes, or if it can create new branches. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and risks.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two words, front-loaded and zero waste. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for quick scanning, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and output, failing to provide enough context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'branch_name' and 'repo_path' represent, their formats, or constraints. For a tool with 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Switches branches' states a clear verb ('switches') and resource ('branches'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from siblings like git_create_branch or git_reset. It doesn't specify if this only switches existing branches or can create new ones, leaving the purpose somewhat ambiguous.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing branch), exclusions (e.g., not for creating branches), or compare to siblings like git_create_branch for branch creation or git_reset for undoing changes. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., status, duration, artifacts). For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get detailed workflow run information'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes meaning, adhering to conciseness principles.
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?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned, how to interpret results, or address key behavioral aspects like authentication or error handling. For a tool that likely interacts with GitHub's API, this leaves too much undefined for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no information about parameters beyond what's inferred from their names (e.g., 'repo_owner', 'run_id'). It doesn't explain what 'include_logs' entails, format expectations for 'repo_name', or how to obtain a 'run_id'. With 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate for this gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get detailed workflow run information' states the verb ('Get') and resource ('workflow run information'), making the basic purpose clear. However, it's vague about what 'detailed' entails and doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'github_get_pr_checks' or 'github_get_failing_jobs' that might also retrieve workflow-related data.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific run_id), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'github_get_failing_jobs' or 'github_get_pr_status' that might overlap in functionality. Usage is implied only by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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. 'Unstages all staged changes' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify whether it's reversible, what permissions are needed, or if it affects the working directory. It lacks details on error conditions (e.g., no staged changes), side effects, or output format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Unstages all staged changes') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations, 1 parameter at 0% coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, reversibility, or error handling, nor does it explain the parameter or return values. For a Git reset tool, more context is needed to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 1 parameter (repo_path) with 0% schema description coverage. It doesn't explain what repo_path represents (e.g., file path, directory, URL), its format, or default behavior. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter poorly documented.
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 'Unstages all staged changes' clearly states the verb ('Unstages') and resource ('all staged changes'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like git_add (which stages changes) and git_commit (which commits staged changes), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The description is specific but could be more precise about scope (e.g., whether it affects the entire repository or specific files).
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing staged changes), exclusions (e.g., not for discarding unstaged changes), or related tools like git_checkout (for discarding changes) or git_reset with modes (e.g., --hard). Usage is implied from the action but lacks explicit context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Records changes' implies a write operation that creates a commit, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens on failure (e.g., if no changes are staged), or any side effects like modifying repository history. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool explanation, though it could benefit from being more informative given the complexity of Git operations. No structural issues are present.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (a Git commit operation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error conditions, return values, or how it interacts with other Git tools. For a mutation tool in a workflow-heavy context like Git, more detail is needed to ensure safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it adds no meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't clarify what 'message' should contain (e.g., commit summary), how 'repo_path' is used, or the purpose of 'gpg_sign' and 'gpg_key_id' for signing commits. With 4 parameters (2 required) and no schema descriptions, this leaves critical usage details undocumented.
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 'Records changes to the repository' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Records') and resource ('changes to the repository'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like git_add (which stages changes) or git_push (which sends changes to remote), leaving some ambiguity about its exact role in the Git workflow.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing staged changes via git_add), exclusions, or how it relates to siblings like git_push for remote operations. Without this context, users might struggle to apply it correctly in a sequence of Git commands.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'comprehensive' but doesn't disclose what that entails (e.g., includes comments, commits, or metadata), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, earning full marks for conciseness.
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?
Given 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, usage context, or how parameters interact, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke this tool without additional assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies 'comprehensive' details, which loosely relates to include_files and include_reviews parameters, but doesn't explain their effects (e.g., what files or reviews are included) or the meaning of repo_owner, repo_name, and pr_number beyond obvious names. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it adds minimal context without fully addressing the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get comprehensive PR details' states the action (get) and resource (PR details) but is vague about scope. It doesn't specify what 'comprehensive' includes or differentiate from sibling tools like github_get_pr_status, github_get_pr_checks, or github_get_pr_files, which suggests overlapping functionality without clear boundaries.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like github_get_pr_status and github_get_pr_files, the description doesn't clarify if this tool aggregates those details or serves a distinct purpose, leaving the agent to guess based on parameter names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('adds') but doesn't cover critical traits: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only or mutating operation (though 'adds' implies mutation), doesn't mention error conditions (e.g., if files don't exist), and doesn't describe the output or side effects. For a tool with 2 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (a Git operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the staging concept in Git, how this tool fits into a typical workflow (e.g., use before git_commit), or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with no structured support, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It doesn't explain what 'files' or 'repo_path' mean beyond their titles—for example, whether 'files' accepts glob patterns or paths relative to 'repo_path'. With 2 undocumented parameters, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names, leaving semantics unclear.
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 'Adds file contents to the staging area' clearly states the verb ('adds') and resource ('file contents to the staging area'), which is specific to Git operations. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings like git_commit (which commits staged changes) or git_reset (which can unstage changes), leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a git repository initialized), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like git_commit (which typically follows git_add) or git_status (which shows staging status). This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to select the right tool in a workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'shows differences' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify output format, whether it's destructive, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates and is front-loaded with the essential information.
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?
Given the tool has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral characteristics, or output format. For a diff tool that likely produces structured comparison data, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no information about the two required parameters (repo_path and target). It doesn't explain what these parameters represent, their expected formats, or how they interact. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('shows differences') and resource ('between branches or commits'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like git_diff_branches, git_diff_staged, and git_diff_unstaged, which appear to offer more specific diff functionality.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling diff tools available (git_diff_branches, git_diff_staged, git_diff_unstaged), the agent receives no indication about which scenarios warrant this general 'git_diff' versus the more specific variants.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 action ('show differences') but doesn't describe what the output includes (e.g., commit diffs, file changes), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any constraints like authentication needs or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of a diff tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter meanings, output format, and usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'base_branch', 'compare_branch', or 'repo_path' mean, their expected formats, or how they interact (e.g., order of comparison). With 3 undocumented parameters, the description fails to provide necessary semantic 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 the verb ('show differences') and resource ('between two branches'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like git_diff_staged or git_diff_unstaged by specifying branch comparison, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with git_diff (which might handle other comparisons).
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like git_diff or other git_* tools. The description implies usage for branch comparisons but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what that includes beyond the implied job data, nor does it mention rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and target, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in tool descriptions.
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?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter meanings, return values, error handling, and behavioral traits, making it incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation by an AI agent in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description doesn't explain any parameters, such as what 'repo_owner' or 'include_logs' mean in context, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation and leaving parameters semantically unclear.
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 the action ('Get detailed information') and the target ('about failing jobs in a PR'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'github_get_pr_checks' or 'github_get_pr_status', which might also provide related PR status information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a PR number), exclusions, or how it differs from similar sibling tools like 'github_get_pr_checks', leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: no information about rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, error handling, or what format the check runs are returned in. This is inadequate for a tool that likely interacts with an external API.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.
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?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or how the optional filters work. For a GitHub API tool that likely returns structured data about check runs, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'repo_owner', 'repo_name', or 'pr_number' should be, or that 'conclusion' and 'status' are optional filters for check runs. The description fails to provide any semantic context beyond what the bare schema titles offer.
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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('check runs for a pull request'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'github_get_pr_details' or 'github_get_pr_status' by focusing specifically on check runs, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'github_get_failing_jobs' which might overlap in functionality.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'github_get_pr_status' (which might include status checks) or 'github_get_failing_jobs' (which might focus on failed checks). The description lacks any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions 'pagination support', which is useful, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format of returned data (e.g., file paths, change types). For a read operation with multiple parameters, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and key feature (pagination). It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
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?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error cases, and the structure of returned data (e.g., list of files with changes). For a tool that interacts with GitHub's API and handles pagination, this omission makes it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description only implies pagination-related parameters ('page', 'per_page') and hints at 'include_patch' but doesn't explain what these mean or how they affect results. It doesn't cover required parameters like 'repo_owner', 'repo_name', and 'pr_number', leaving their purpose unclear.
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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('files changed in a pull request'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'github_get_pr_details' or 'github_get_pr_status', which reduces clarity about its unique role in the GitHub PR toolset.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios where this tool is preferred over other GitHub PR tools (e.g., 'github_get_pr_details' for metadata or 'github_get_pr_checks' for status checks), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a valid PR number or repository access.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format, which are critical for a tool interacting with GitHub APIs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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?
For a tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or output expectations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'pr_number', 'repo_name', or 'repo_owner' mean or how to format them, leaving parameters undocumented.
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 the action ('Get') and target ('status and check runs for a pull request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'github_get_pr_details' or 'github_get_pr_checks' by specifying both status and check runs, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_get_pr_checks' or 'github_get_pr_details'. The description implies usage for pull request status and check runs but offers no context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'filtering and pagination' but doesn't explain what filtering options exist, how pagination works (e.g., default page size, limits), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List pull requests for a repository') and adds key features ('with filtering and pagination'). There's no wasted language or redundancy, making it appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter details, behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication, output format, or differentiation from siblings. For a list operation with rich filtering, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'filtering and pagination,' which loosely relates to some parameters (e.g., state, page, per_page), but doesn't explain what specific filters exist (e.g., base, head, direction, sort) or their semantics. With 9 parameters and no schema descriptions, this minimal guidance is insufficient.
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 the action ('List pull requests') and resource ('for a repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also mentions additional capabilities ('with filtering and pagination'), which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling GitHub tools like github_get_pr_details or github_get_pr_status, which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like github_get_pr_details (for specific PRs) or github_get_pr_status (for status checks), nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Initialize' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify what exactly gets created (.git directory, default branch), whether it's idempotent, what happens if the path isn't empty, or what permissions are required. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and wastes no space.
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?
For a tool that creates a repository (a significant write operation) with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter details, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with inadequate context for proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'repo_path', the description provides no additional parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'repo_path' represents (e.g., absolute/relative path, must exist, must be empty), leaving the parameter's meaning and constraints undocumented.
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 the action ('Initialize') and resource ('new Git repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings (like git_clone or git_remote_add), which would require a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an empty directory), when not to use it (e.g., on existing repositories), or how it relates to sibling tools like git_clone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('pull changes') but lacks critical details: whether it performs a merge or fast-forward, what happens on conflicts, if it updates remote tracking branches, authentication requirements, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('pull changes') and specifies the source ('from remote repository'). Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of a git pull operation (mutation, potential for conflicts, multiple parameters) with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It misses behavioral details, parameter meanings, and output expectations, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'repo_path' expects (absolute vs. relative path, must be a git repo), what 'branch' does (defaults to current branch? pulls all branches?), or 'remote' behavior (what 'origin' means, can it be other remotes). With 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is inadequate.
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 the verb ('pull') and resource ('changes from remote repository'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like git_push (which pushes changes) and git_status (which shows status). However, it doesn't specify what type of changes (commits, tags, etc.) or mention merging behavior, keeping it from a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a git repository initialized, being in a clean state), when not to use it (e.g., during merge conflicts), or how it differs from similar tools like git_fetch (not in the sibling list but a common alternative).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Shows' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify output format (e.g., raw commit data, patch, or summary), error handling, or any constraints like authentication needs or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interpret results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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?
Given the complexity of a Git operation with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover what the output looks like (e.g., commit details, diff, or raw content), how errors are handled, or how it differs from similar tools, leaving the agent with incomplete information for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'contents of a commit' but doesn't explain what 'repo_path' and 'revision' mean (e.g., path to repository, commit hash or branch name). Without this, the agent lacks context to use the parameters correctly beyond their basic types.
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 the verb ('shows') and resource ('contents of a commit'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like git_log (which shows commit history) or git_diff (which shows differences), leaving some ambiguity about what specific content is displayed.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like git_log, git_diff, and git_status available, there's no indication of whether this shows full commit metadata, file changes, or other details, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Shows the working tree status' implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what information is included (staged vs unstaged changes, untracked files, branch information), the output format, or any limitations. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just four words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential purpose and doesn't include any unnecessary elaboration or repetition.
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?
For a git status tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'working tree status' includes, how results are presented, or provide any context about the single required parameter. The description should do much more given the complete lack of structured documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'repo_path', the description provides no additional parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'repo_path' should contain (absolute path, relative path, repository identifier) or provide any examples. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
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 the verb ('shows') and resource ('working tree status'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like git_diff_staged or git_diff_unstaged, which also show status information about different aspects of the repository.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple git status-related tools available (git_diff_staged, git_diff_unstaged, git_diff), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over those siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires write permissions, if it validates branch names, what happens on conflicts, or error conditions (e.g., if base branch doesn't exist). 'Creates' implies mutation, but no further details are provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes key detail about the base branch being optional, making it appropriately sized for its purpose.
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?
Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter meanings, behavioral context (e.g., side effects, errors), and return values, making it inadequate for a mutation tool with multiple inputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but only mentions 'optional base branch' implicitly referring to one parameter. It doesn't explain the semantics of repo_path (e.g., local path vs. URL) or branch_name (format constraints). Baseline is 3 due to minimal compensation for low coverage.
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 the action ('Creates a new branch') and resource ('branch'), specifying it's from an optional base branch. It distinguishes from siblings like git_checkout or git_merge by focusing on creation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., git_init also creates something).
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 this tool versus alternatives like git_checkout for switching branches or git_init for initializing repos. The description mentions 'optional base branch' but doesn't explain when to specify it versus using default behavior, or prerequisites like needing an existing repo.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'shows changes', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, what format the output is in, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity in Git operations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of Git operations, no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like output format, error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides (a single 'repo_path' parameter). With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining what 'repo_path' means or its format. However, since there's only one parameter, the baseline is slightly higher, but it still lacks meaningful semantic 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 the verb ('shows') and resource ('changes that are staged for commit'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'git_diff' or 'git_diff_unstaged', which would require mentioning it specifically shows staged changes versus unstaged or all changes.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'git_diff' or 'git_diff_unstaged'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a staged change) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Push commits' implies a write operation that modifies remote state, but it doesn't disclose critical behaviors like authentication requirements, potential for overwriting remote changes, error conditions (e.g., non-fast-forward), or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear core function, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks guidance, parameter explanations, behavioral details, and output expectations—critical gaps given the tool's complexity and potential for destructive actions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides only titles and types without explanations. The description adds no parameter semantics whatsoever—it doesn't mention what 'branch', 'force', 'remote', etc. mean or how they affect the operation. However, with 5 parameters including complex ones like 'force', the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
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 'Push commits to remote repository' clearly states the verb ('push') and resource ('commits to remote repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like git_pull (which fetches) or git_commit (which creates commits locally), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., having commits ready to push), when to use force pushing, or when to choose this over other version control operations. Without any usage context, the agent must infer timing from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does but doesn't mention output format, whether it shows full diffs or summaries, potential side effects, or error conditions. 'Shows changes' is vague about behavioral characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately states what it does but lacks details about output format, error handling, or behavioral nuances. It's complete enough for basic understanding but leaves operational questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description doesn't mention parameters at all, but with only 1 parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the baseline would be lower. However, the tool name and description strongly imply the repo_path parameter context, providing meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema.
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 the verb 'shows' and the resource 'changes in the working directory' with the specific condition 'that are not yet staged'. It distinguishes from sibling git_diff_staged by specifying unstaged changes, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from git_diff which might show both staged and unstaged changes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (when you want to see unstaged changes) but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like git_diff or git_status. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-git MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MementoRC/mcp-git/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MementoRC/mcp-git)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-git MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MementoRC/mcp-git/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MementoRC/mcp-git)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/MementoRC/mcp-git'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server