git_statusCheck the current state of a git working tree to identify modified, staged, or untracked files, helping you review changes before committing.
Return git working tree status for the workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | . | |
| max_entries | No | ||
| include_untracked | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| error | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds the workspace scope and confirms the return value is status, but does not disclose behavior like result truncation via max_entries or untracked-file handling.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the resource and operation.
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 simple read-only tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the workspace scope and the core function. It is slightly incomplete because it does not clarify how path or max_entries affect the result, though the schema partially covers these.
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 description must compensate for the three parameters. It does not mention path, max_entries, or include_untracked, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names and defaults.
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 uses a specific verb-resource pair, 'Return git working tree status,' which clearly identifies the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling git tools like git_diff or git_log, so it falls short of a 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling git tools (git_diff, git_log, git_show, git_blame). The usage is only implied by the tool's name and purpose, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.