git_commitInitialize a Git repository when needed, block commits that include secrets or .env files, then stage and commit all changes.
git init (branch main) if needed, refuse when secrets or .env files would be committed, then stage everything and commit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dir | Yes | Project folder (absolute path, or relative to the server's working directory). | |
| message | Yes | Commit message. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the load. It meaningfully adds that the tool auto-runs git init on branch main when needed, refuses when secrets/.env files would be committed, and stages ALL changes before committing — valuable side-effect disclosure. It omits whether a commit is skipped when there's nothing staged.
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 dense sentence with zero waste that front-loads the setup and guard behavior before the core commit action. Every clause carries information.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description covers init, guard, staging, and commit behavior. It stops short of describing the return (e.g., commit hash or a no-op result), which would be the only remaining gap for a two-parameter mutation tool.
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 dir and message are already documented by the schema. The description adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 concrete verb and resource (stage everything and commit) and reveals the setup/guard steps around it. It distinguishes the operation clearly from siblings like tag_and_release or run_checks, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.
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?
It implies when the tool is appropriate through the 'if needed' init clause and the secrets refusal, which acts as a precondition. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not point to sibling tools such as scan_secrets for pre-checking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.