Reverts the current HEAD or specific paths to a chosen commit or state. Use it to undo staged or committed changes with modes like soft, mixed, or hard.
Reset current HEAD or paths.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | Optional local working directory or repository path. | |
| mode | No | Optional reset mode. | |
| target | No | Optional commit or 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, and it discloses almost nothing: it never states that "hard" mode permanently discards working-tree and staged changes, that the operation is irreversible for uncommitted work, or what the modes do. For a destructive git operation this is a significant gap, though the verb does at least signal mutation.
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 with zero waste. It is efficient, but the brevity is arguably under-specification rather than true conciseness for a tool with dangerous modes.
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 no usage or mode explanations, the definition leaves an agent without enough to safely choose this tool over git_restore/git_revert or to pick a reset mode. Only the 100% schema coverage on the three parameters keeps it from being wholly inadequate.
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, mode, and target are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description's phrase "HEAD or paths" loosely echoes the target parameter but adds no detail on the soft/mixed/hard/merge/keep modes, which is where the real semantic risk lies.
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?
It names a verb ("Reset") and a resource ("current HEAD or paths"), so an agent can identify the operation. However, it gives no differentiation from closely related siblings such as git_restore, git_revert, and git_checkout, which are exactly what an agent would confuse with reset. Its purpose is recognizable but not disambiguated.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives, even though git_restore/git_revert/git_checkout overlap heavily with this tool. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.