Skip to main content
Glama
ceshine

Git Prompts MCP Server

by ceshine
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation3/5

    The three tools have overlapping purposes focused on git diffs and commit history, which could cause confusion. git-cached-diff and git-diff both produce diffs but target different git states, while git-commit-messages retrieves commit messages. The descriptions help clarify the distinctions, but the domain overlap is significant.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent 'git-' prefix with hyphenated descriptive terms (cached-diff, commit-messages, diff). This pattern is predictable and readable throughout the set, with no deviations in style or convention.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for a git-related domain, which typically involves more operations like status, log, branch, or push. While the tools cover specific diff and commit message scenarios, the scope appears limited and potentially incomplete for general git workflows.

    Completeness2/5

    For a git server, there are significant gaps in the tool surface. It lacks basic operations such as viewing status, checking out branches, pushing/pulling changes, or creating commits. The tools only cover diff and commit message retrieval, leaving most git workflows unsupported and likely to cause agent failures.

  • Average 3.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool gets a diff, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires Git repository access, error handling, output format details, or performance considerations. The description is minimal and lacks context beyond the basic action.

    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?

    The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's purpose.

    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?

    Given the tool's complexity (simple diff operation), high schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and lack of usage guidance, it leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full context and behavior.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'ancestor' parameter well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

    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?

    The description clearly states the action ('Get a diff') and the target ('between the HEAD and the ancestor branch or commit'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'git-cached-diff' or 'git-commit-messages', which might have overlapping or related functionality in a Git context.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or specific contexts for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves commit messages but doesn't describe key behaviors like whether it's read-only, safe to use, how it handles errors, or what the output format entails. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

    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?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the task, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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

    Completeness4/5

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

    Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. However, it lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines, which are needed for full contextual understanding, especially with no annotations provided.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    The input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the 'ancestor' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

    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?

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('commit messages'), and specifies the scope ('between the ancestor and HEAD'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like git-cached-diff or git-diff, which might also involve commit history or comparisons.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling tools git-cached-diff or git-diff. It mentions the scope but doesn't clarify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but does not describe behavioral traits such as output format, error handling, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

    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?

    The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

    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?

    Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like output format or usage context, which could be more complete despite the simplicity of the tool.

    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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool, earning a baseline score of 4.

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

    Purpose5/5

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

    The description clearly states the specific action ('Get a diff') and the resources involved ('files in the staging area (the index) and the HEAD'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like git-diff by specifying the staging area vs. HEAD comparison, which is a precise scope.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    The description implies usage context by specifying 'staging area (the index) vs. HEAD', which helps differentiate it from general git-diff. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like git-diff or git-commit-messages, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

git-prompts-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

git-prompts-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ceshine/git-prompts-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server