Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Copilot Desktop MCP

Copilot Desktop MCP

by avianhermana
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Git Status

git_status
Read-only

Retrieve repository status for an approved workspace directory or the current project to identify changed, staged, and untracked files before committing.

Instructions

Get git status for an approved workspace directory (defaults to current project).

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_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_pathNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond that: the workspace-approval restriction and the default-path fallback, but says nothing about what status output includes or how errors surface on an unapproved path.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource, scope and default behavior all arrive immediately.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a simple read-only tool this is nearly sufficient, but the approval constraint is mentioned without explaining what happens if the directory is not approved, leaving a small gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

With one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the load, and it does explain the key semantic: omitting project_path falls back to the current project rather than being a bare empty string. It still doesn't state the expected path format (absolute vs relative), which keeps it below a 5.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('git status') scoped to a workspace directory, which clearly separates it from siblings like git_diff or git_log. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'for an approved workspace directory' implies a precondition (the workspace must be approved) and the parenthetical says what happens when no path is given. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over git_diff or git_log, so usage is only implied.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools