Create a commit from staged changes by providing a message; optionally stage modified or deleted tracked files first. Use to save local repository changes.
Create a commit from staged changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| all | No | Stage tracked modified/deleted files before committing. | |
| cwd | No | Optional local working directory or repository path. | |
| message | Yes | Commit message. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral load. It mentions staging implicitly but doesn't disclose that the operation mutates repository state, requires a staged index, or is irrevocable without reset. Key traits like write behavior and side effects are left unstated.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and its dependency without any filler. Appropriate for a simple three-parameter tool.
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 mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and no usage guidelines, the description is incomplete. It should disclose write behavior, prerequisites for staging, and perhaps how it interacts with sibling tools like git_add.
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 coverage is 100%; every parameter is fully documented in the input schema, including defaults and constraints. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('commit') with scope ('from staged changes'). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like git_add or git_reset, but establishes a clear, distinct purpose among the git family.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The phrase 'from staged changes' implies changes must be staged first, but it doesn't explicitly tell the agent to use git_add or specify prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.