Switch the current git repository to another branch, optionally creating it first. Use this to change working branches in a local repo.
Switch branches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | Optional local working directory or repository path. | |
| branch | Yes | Branch name. | |
| create | No | Create the branch while switching. |
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 disclosure burden and does not meet it. It never mentions that this mutates the working tree/index, that it can fail with uncommitted changes, or what the response contains — all critical for a state-changing git operation.
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?
Two words is maximally front-loaded and wastes nothing, but here the brevity is under-specification rather than effective concision for a state-mutating git tool with three parameters.
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 guidance, the description is too thin for a mutation tool in a 27-tool git family full of near-overlapping siblings. An agent cannot safely decide to call this instead of git_checkout on the text alone.
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% (cwd, branch, create are each documented in-schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning, such as what create=true does to the branch pointer or whether the name must already exist.
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 concrete verb and resource ("Switch branches"), so an agent immediately knows this changes the checked-out branch. It does not differentiate from git_checkout, which also switches branches, nor from git_branch, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated rather than 5.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the heavily overlapping sibling git_checkout (or git_restore for files). The description gives the agent no basis for choosing this tool over an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.