git-remote-mcp

git_ls_files

List tracked, modified, and untracked files in a local Git repository to inspect index state before staging or committing changes.

Instructions

List tracked files and other index information.

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": "git_ls_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cwd`	No	Optional local working directory or repository path.
`others`	No	Show untracked files.
`modified`	No	Show modified files.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It doesn't state whether it's read-only, whether it respects .gitignore, or what the output format is. 'Other index information' is left unexplained.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no waste. Purpose is front-loaded and there is nothing superfluous.

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?

For a read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain index concepts, output shape, or relationship to sibling commands like git_status.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters fully. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a clear verb (list) and resource (tracked files / index information). Adequately distinguishes from siblings like git_status and git_grep, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The 'index information' phrase is a bit vague beyond tracked files.

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 versus git_status, git_diff, or git_grep. A capable agent may infer it, but the description provides no explicit context or exclusions.

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