Push local commits to a specified remote name and branch in a Git repository.
Push commits to remote
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "git_push"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| remote | No | Remote name | |
| branch | No | Branch name | |
| cwd | No | Repository path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, the description is too sparse, omitting critical behaviors like whether it allows force push, handles diverged branches, or requires authentication.
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?
The description is extremely concise (4 words), but it lacks necessary detail. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of important 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?
Given the tool's complexity (Git push) and the absence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It provides no context on success behavior, error handling, or default remote behavior.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described simply (e.g., 'Remote name'). The description does not add any further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?
Description clearly states 'Push commits to remote', providing a specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like git_pull or git_commit.
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?
Description offers no guidance on when to use git_push versus alternatives such as git_commit or git_pull. It implicitly means one would push after committing, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.