git-remote-mcp

git_show

Display a Git object or revision from a local repository, defaulting to HEAD, to inspect commits, files, tags, or metadata.

Instructions

Show an object from the local repository.

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_show"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cwd`	No	Optional local working directory or repository path.
`rev`	No	Revision or object to show.	HEAD

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

C2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about what 'show' does beyond a generic verb – no mention of output format, whether it prints to stdout, what happens with invalid revisions, or if it modifies state. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise. However, it is so terse that it lacks front-loaded specifics – it does not specify which object types or the format of output, making the brevity a liability rather than an asset.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

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 a tool complex enough to have 26 siblings in a VCS context, the description is inadequate. It omits critical context like the types of objects that can be shown, typical use cases, and how it differs from similar tools such as git_diff or git_log.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters ('cwd' and 'rev') are documented in the schema with defaults and descriptions. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Show an object from the local repository' restates the tool name (git_show) without specifying what an 'object' is (commit, blob, tag, tree) or what 'show' returns. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like git_diff or git_log, which also display repository content. An agent cannot tell from this description what it will actually get back.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 26 sibling tools including git_diff, git_log, and git_cat-file-like operations, the description provides no context on selection criteria or prerequisites.

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