List, create, or delete Git tags in a local repository. Specify a tag name, optional message for annotated tags, and set the delete flag to remove tags.
List, create, or delete tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | Optional local working directory or repository path. | |
| name | No | Tag name. | |
| delete | No | Delete the tag. | |
| message | No | Create an annotated tag with this message. |
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 behavioral burden and does not disclose that create and delete are mutating, whether deletion is local-only or reaches a remote, permission requirements, or reversibility. The only hint at behavior is the word 'delete', which the parameter description already conveys.
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 no wasted words, which is well suited to a short tool. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-verbose, but the sizing itself is efficient.
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 three-mode tool with mutations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unstated: which parameters are required per mode, whether list returns anything structured, and what deletion affects. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.
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 all four parameters are already documented, making 3 the appropriate baseline. The description adds no format details, no explanation of how 'delete', 'name', and 'message' combine across the three modes, so it does not exceed what the schema provides.
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 description states concrete verbs (list, create, delete) applied to a specific resource (tags), and no sibling tool covers tags, so it is unambiguous. It stops short of differentiating modes or linking to related workflow tools like git_push, which keeps it from a 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?
There is no guidance on when to use each mode or how the parameters interact with them (e.g., which parameters apply when deleting versus creating). An agent must infer that 'delete=true' selects the deletion path and that 'message' selects an annotated tag, with no explicit statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.