Check the working tree status of a configured Git repository to see changed, staged, and untracked files before committing.
Run git status in a repo Shelly has configured (see list_repos for valid paths).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute repo path on the device |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context. `git status` inherently implies a read-only inspection, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, what permissions are required, or what kind of output to expect.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core action and the path-validity constraint are both expressed efficiently.
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 one-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation constraint. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly noting that it is a read-only operation, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
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 100%, so the parameter is already documented as an absolute repo path. The description adds useful meaning by clarifying that the path must be a repo Shelly has configured and directing the agent to `list_repos` for valid values.
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: run `git status` in a Shelly-configured repo. It is clearly distinguishable from `list_repos` because it points to that sibling for valid paths, though it does not explicitly contrast with `run_command`.
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?
Provides a prerequisite for valid repo paths via `list_repos`, which is useful context. However, it does not say when to choose this over `run_command` or other siblings, so tool selection guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.