MCP Git Server

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.