Synchronize the project's stored Git hash with the current HEAD commit for accurate state tracking.
Update project.last_known_git_hash with current Git HEAD
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": "sync_git_state"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.37.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already show readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'Update' is consistent. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., safety, side effects) are disclosed beyond what annotations provide, leading to a baseline score.
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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and target, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what it does. No additional context is necessary.
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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, and with 0 params a score of 4 is appropriate.
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 'Update project.last_known_git_hash with current Git HEAD' clearly states the specific action and target resource, distinguishing it from any sibling tools that update other fields.
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?
The description implies when to use: when the git hash needs syncing. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but the specificity makes it clear. Siblings like 'update_project' exist but target broader fields, so context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.