Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
git-context-mcp

git-context-mcp

by TamiShaks-2
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

project_status

Retrieve a technical snapshot of a local git repository for project state, code structure, and activity analysis.

Instructions

Returns a technical snapshot of a local git repository.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "repo_path": "<repo_path>"
    },
    "name": "project_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repo_pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states 'returns a technical snapshot' but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, permission requirements, or side effects. Minimal transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise single sentence, no wasted words. However, it lacks structure like bullet points or usage hints that could improve clarity without adding length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that the tool has one parameter and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete: it does not define 'technical snapshot' or specify any preconditions. An agent may not understand what the tool returns or when it is appropriate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the repo_path parameter at all. No additional meaning beyond the schema's required field declaration.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states it returns a technical snapshot of a local git repository. Verb 'Returns' and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like code_map or recent_activity, though 'technical snapshot' could be more precise.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like code_map or recent_activity. Agent must infer use case without any context about typical scenarios or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools