Git MCP Server

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 the 'recursive' parameter's effect but fails to describe key behaviors such as pagination handling (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or the format of returned data. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap, warranting a score of 2.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence and adding a useful tip in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without waste. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning pagination or other key behaviors, preventing a perfect score of 5.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits like pagination, error handling, and return format, which are crucial for effective use. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should compensate more by explaining these aspects, but it doesn't, resulting in a score of 2.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value by explaining the 'recursive' parameter's effect ('to get full tree'), but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding, so it remains at 3.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List files and directories in a repository.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('files and directories in a repository'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_branches' or 'list_commits', which reduces the score from a 5 to a 4.

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 minimal usage guidance with 'Use recursive=true to get full tree,' which hints at a parameter-specific behavior but doesn't offer broader context. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_file_contents' for file details or 'search_code' for searching, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions. This results in a score of 2, as there's no substantial guidance on tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.