Inspect a local Git repository to show staged, unstaged, and untracked changes. Optionally use short output or specify a different working directory.
Run git status on the local repository.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | Optional local working directory or repository path. | |
| short | No | Use git status --short. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Run git status' implicitly signals a non-mutating, read-only inspection and 'local repository' scopes it, which is reasonable context, but it never explicitly states that no write occurs or how the output is formatted.
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 padding, which is efficient. It borders on under-specification for the tool's role, but there is no wasted text.
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 simple read command with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but omits expected behavior details such as the read-only nature and what the status report includes, leaving the agent relying on prior knowledge of git.
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 both parameters (cwd, short) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Run git status) and scope (on the local repository), which is enough to distinguish it from remote-inspecting or history-reading siblings like git_log or git_diff. It is clear, though it largely restates the tool name without explaining what status output contains.
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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as git_diff or git_log, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., being inside a git repo). The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.