Get a short git status for the repository at a given path, showing modified and untracked files.
Get git status (short)
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "git_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Get git status' implies a read-only operation but does not state whether it returns porcelain output, whether it requires any authentication, or how it handles errors. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the name already suggests.
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 concise sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the essential verb and resource, making it easy to parse. All words earn their place, though the ambiguity of 'short' slightly detracts from clarity, the structure is appropriately minimal for a simple tool.
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?
The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a single undocumented parameter. The description does not explain the return format, the meaning of 'short', or how the `cwd` parameter affects execution. This incompleteness makes it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional context or heuristics.
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?
The input schema defines a single parameter, `cwd`, with no description (0% schema coverage). The description does not mention `cwd` or clarify its purpose (e.g., which directory to run git in). Since there is no parameter documentation in either the schema or description, the agent has no way to understand how to set or omit this parameter correctly.
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 'Get git status (short)' clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (git status), distinguishing it from sibling tools like git_diff and git_commit_prepare. However, the term 'short' is ambiguous—does it mean the `--short` flag or abbreviated output? This slight vagueness 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., git_diff for diff details, git_commit_prepare for committing). There are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context 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.