Switch branches or restore working tree files in a local Git repository by specifying a branch, commit, or pathspec; optionally create and switch to a new branch.
Switch branches or restore working tree files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | Optional local working directory or repository path. | |
| ref | Yes | Branch, commit, or pathspec argument. | |
| create | No | Create and switch to a new branch with git checkout -b. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It omits checkout's key traits: restoring files can silently discard uncommitted local changes, switching branches can fail on a dirty working tree, and neither the failure mode nor the return output is described. For a potentially destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is under-disclosed.
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 short sentence with no filler and the core behavior front-loaded. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight structure.
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 dual-mode tool (branch switching vs. file restoration) that overlaps heavily with git_switch and git_restore, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does far too little. An agent cannot determine which mode applies or when to prefer this over the more specific siblings.
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 ref, cwd, and create are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("Switch branches or restore working tree files"), so an agent immediately knows the operation. However, it does not distinguish git_checkout from the closely-named siblings git_switch and git_restore, which cover the same two behaviors. Clear purpose, but sibling differentiation is absent.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. Given that git_switch and git_restore exist as siblings and appear to map directly onto the two capabilities described here, the absence of any routing or selection guidance is a notable gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.