Search tracked files in a git repository for a specified pattern, using an optional pathspec to narrow results to relevant files.
Search tracked files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | Optional local working directory or repository path. | |
| pattern | Yes | Pattern to search for. | |
| pathspec | No | Optional pathspec. |
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 adds only the 'tracked files' scope, omitting pattern semantics, case sensitivity, whether it searches working tree or index, output format, and error behavior.
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?
Three words are waste-free and front-loaded, but the fragment is so terse that it under-specifies the tool. It is concise without being adequately informative for a search operation.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and many git siblings, the definition lacks key details for correct invocation. It does not clarify what is searched (file contents vs paths), how the pattern is interpreted, or what results look like.
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%, with each of the three parameters documented. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is 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?
Specific verb 'Search' and resource 'tracked files' are present, but 'search' is ambiguous between filename matching and content matching. The description does not distinguish git_grep from siblings like git_ls_files or git_diff.
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 guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The agent must infer from the tool name that this is for pattern-based content search rather than listing or diffing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.