Git MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs write operations ('push') with multiple file actions, but lacks critical details: required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on conflicts. For a mutation tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Push multiple files to a repository in a single commit') and adds only essential elaboration ('Supports create, update, delete, and move actions'). Every word earns its place.

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 (7 parameters, mutation operations, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and action types, but lacks behavioral context like permissions, side effects, or return values. For a batch file mutation tool, more guidance on usage and outcomes would be beneficial.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'multiple files' and 'single commit', which aligns with the 'actions' array parameter, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraint details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('push multiple files'), target resource ('to a repository'), and scope ('in a single commit'), with explicit enumeration of supported operations ('create, update, delete, and move actions'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_branch or update_issue which handle different repository operations.

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 implies usage context through 'push multiple files' and 'single commit', suggesting batch file operations rather than individual file changes. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_branch for branch operations or update_issue for issue tracking, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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