Reapply commits onto another base to rewrite branch history. Continue, abort, or skip an active rebase when conflicts or changes need handling.
Reapply commits on top of another base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | Optional local working directory or repository path. | |
| ref | No | Upstream branch or commit. | |
| action | No | Rebase control action. |
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, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not mention that rebase rewrites commit history, that it can leave the repository in a conflicted intermediate state, or that the continue/abort/skip actions exist to recover from that state. 'Reapply commits' only faintly hints at history rewriting.
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?
It is a single well-formed sentence with zero filler and the core operation front-loaded. It is efficient, though for a tool of this complexity the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.
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?
This is a stateful, potentially history-rewriting operation with a control-action enum and no annotations or output schema to fill the gaps, yet the description is one generic sentence. An agent has no information about conflict states, safety, or recovery, so the definition is not complete enough for correct invocation.
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 cwd, ref, and action are already documented in the schema, and the standard baseline for that situation is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about ref syntax, the meaning of the action enum values, or how they interact with an in-progress rebase.
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 sentence gives a specific verb (reapply) and object (commits) with the notable scope constraint 'on top of another base', which is the textbook definition of a rebase. It does not, however, distinguish this from closely related siblings such as git_merge, git_cherry_pick, or git_reset, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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 indication of when to prefer rebase over merge or cherry-pick, no mention of the conflict-resolution workflow implied by the continue/abort/skip action parameter, and no note about when the tool should not be used. The agent is left to infer all routing decisions from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.