sailfish_repo_statusCheck current Git branch and short file status under the configured repository root before managing Sailfish OS build or deployment tasks.
Run git status --short --branch under the configured git root.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| timeout | No | Command timeout in seconds. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by naming the exact invocation, which implicitly reveals the output shape (short status with branch). It omits failure behavior (e.g. non-git directory) but is strong for a read-only tool.
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 filler that conveys the verb, flags, and scope. Nothing extraneous.
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 read-only tool with no output schema, naming the exact git invocation largely documents the return. But the undocumented 'path' parameter and lack of any error/edge-case note leave gaps for correct invocation.
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 coverage is only 50%: 'timeout' is documented, but 'path' has no schema description and the description does not explain it. The phrase 'under the configured git root' only hints at path semantics and does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.
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 and the exact command executed ('Run git status --short --branch'), so the agent knows precisely what the tool does. However it does not differentiate itself from the sibling sailfish_repo_find, so it stops short of 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?
No guidance on when to use this versus sailfish_repo_find or other repo/spec tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. The agent must infer usage from the command name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.