Combine a specified commit or branch into the current local Git branch, optionally pausing before commit to control history updates.
Merge a commit or branch into the current branch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | Optional local working directory or repository path. | |
| ref | Yes | Commit or branch to merge. | |
| noCommit | No | Use --no-commit. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about conflict handling, fast-forward behavior, whether it can modify the working tree, or failure modes. 'Merge' implies a write operation, but the agent gets no confirmation of effects beyond the simplest reading.
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 zero waste, front-loaded with the verb and resource.
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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. An agent could invoke it, but lacks conflict/rollback context and the effect of noCommit, which the schema only names.
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%: ref, cwd, and noCommit are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond restating the merge target, so the baseline of 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?
Clear verb (merge) and resource (commit or branch into current branch), so an agent knows exactly what it does. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like git_rebase or git_cherry_pick, which also integrate changes, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. In a family of many git mutation tools (rebase, cherry-pick, revert), choosing merge correctly requires knowing the distinction, and the description provides none.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.