MCP-Connect — Kali Agent MCP v2

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

git_worktree_list

List all Git worktrees in a repository to manage multiple working directories efficiently.

Instructions

Kali Agent MCP tool: git_worktree_list Explicit execution timing is supported. Before calling, deliberately choose expected_runtime_seconds, timeout_seconds, check_after_seconds, poll_interval_seconds, and on_timeout. Use on_timeout='continue_background' for long work that should return a durable job_id for later job_status/job_logs/job_wait checks; use 'kill' or 'return_partial' for bounded synchronous work.

Tool call template

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_worktree_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`path`	No	.
`on_timeout`	No	return_partial
`timeout_seconds`	No
`check_after_seconds`	No
`poll_interval_seconds`	No
`expected_runtime_seconds`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavioral traits by explaining the execution timing parameters and their effects (e.g., on_timeout for background jobs). However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only or what it returns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is relatively concise but misallocated: it focuses entirely on execution timing while omitting the tool's primary function. It could be more effective by front-loading the purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description fails to explain the core action (listing worktrees). For a simple list tool in a security context, the description is incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaningful semantics for 5 of the 6 parameters (expected_runtime_seconds, timeout_seconds, check_after_seconds, poll_interval_seconds, on_timeout), explaining their purpose and usage. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage, though the 'path' parameter is not mentioned.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description does not explicitly state that the tool lists Git worktrees. It only repeats the tool name and then discusses execution timing parameters, leaving the core purpose unclear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., git_worktree_create, git_worktree_remove). The description only covers timing parameters, not usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server