Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gitbash-mcp

gitbash-mcp

by Violetylove
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Show git-bash environment info

bash_info

Verify Git Bash setup by reporting resolved Bash path, Bash/Git versions, and key environment values; run doctor for a full diagnosis.

Instructions

Report the resolved bash path, bash/git versions and key environment values. Use doctor for a full diagnosis.

Tool call template

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": "bash_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.3.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly by saying 'Report', and lists what values are surfaced, but says nothing about format, caching, or whether output is human- or machine-readable. Adequate but thin for an annotation-free tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by the alternative. No filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a parameterless info tool with no output schema, the description covers what it reports and where to go if more is needed. It could name the keys returned, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Zero parameters, so the schema provides nothing to describe and the baseline is 4. The description correctly reflects a no-argument tool rather than implying hidden inputs.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (Report) plus concrete resources (bash path, bash/git versions, key environment values), and names the sibling 'doctor' as the richer alternative. An agent can distinguish this from exec/doctor/policy without reading schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly routes heavier diagnostic needs to 'doctor', giving a clear alternative for the wider case. It stops short of stating when this tool is the right choice vs. checking exec or policy, but the routing cues are solid.

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