Retrieves current git workspace state—branch, commit, dirty flag, and changed files—so agents can verify conditions before editing or handing off work.
Get git workspace status (branch, commit, dirty, changes).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds that the status includes branch, commit, dirty state, and changes, which is useful context beyond the annotation, but it does not describe return shape or pagination behavior.
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 a single efficient sentence with no wasted words. The purpose and key output fields are front-loaded.
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 simple read-only, zero-parameter status tool with a readOnlyHint annotation and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It lists the main status fields, though it could say a bit more about the expected return structure.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool has a baseline score of 4.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get git workspace status', and enumerates the status contents (branch, commit, dirty, changes). It is clear, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from the sibling workspace.diff tool.
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 this tool versus alternatives such as workspace.diff. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and the word 'status'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.