"context_servers": {
  "git_prompt_mcp": {
    "command": {
      "path": "uv",
      "args": [
        "--directory",
        "/path/to/local/git_prompts_mcp_server",
        "run",
        "git-prompts-mcp-server",
        "/path/to/repo/", // parent folder of the .git directory
        "--excludes", // exclude files and directories from diff results
        "**/uv.lock",
        "--excludes",
        "**/.gitignore",
        "--format", // format for diff results
        "json"  // options: json, text
      ]
    },
    "settings": {}
  }
}

命令

服务器响应以下命令：

/git-diff <ancestor_branch_or_commit> ：填充 HEAD 与指定祖先分支或提交之间的差异结果。
/generate-pr-desc <ancestor_branch_or_commit> ：根据 HEAD 与指定祖先分支或提交之间的差异结果生成拉取请求描述。

注意：这与/git-diff大致相同，但它包含在输出末尾生成拉取请求描述的说明。

/git-cached-diff ：填充阶段性变更和 HEAD 的差异结果。

例子：

/generate-pr-desc main
/git-diff dev
/git-cached-diff

执照

MIT 许可证。详情请参阅许可证。

Available Tools

3 tools

git-cached-diffA

Get a diff between the files in the staging area (the index) and the HEAD

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

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.

git-commit-messagesB

Get commit messages between the ancestor and HEAD

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ancestor`	Yes	The ancestor commit hash or branch name

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`result`	Yes

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

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.

git-diffB

Get a diff between the HEAD and the ancestor branch or commit

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ancestor`	Yes	The ancestor commit hash or branch name

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`result`	Yes

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

3 tool updatesv1.0.0Jan 3, 2026
- Changedgit-cached-diff1 field changed
  - changedOutput schema / properties / result / items / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -trueNew value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- Changedgit-commit-messages1 field changed
  - changedOutput schema / properties / result / items / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -trueNew value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- Changedgit-diff1 field changed
  - changedOutput schema / properties / result / items / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -trueNew value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
3 tool updatesSep 25, 2025
- First observedgit-cached-diff
- First observedgit-commit-messages
- First observedgit-diff

Deploy Server

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Scored 2026-04-18 10:40 across 3 tools

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.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

GitHub Repository

Need Help?

Related Servers

Related MCP Connectors

hithereiamaliff-mcp-nextcloudOAuth
ai.smithery
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Cloud Storage File Systems Workplace & Productivity
238
saidsef-mcp-github-pr-issue-analyser
ai.smithery
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) application for automated GitHub PR analysis and issue management.…
Version Control Developer Tools Project Management
26
mcp COAuth
com.wix
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
Developer Tools Content Management Systems App Automation
216
Sentry AOAuth
dev.sentry.mcp
Enable secure connectivity between Sentry issues and debugging data, and LLM clients, using a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server.
Monitoring Developer Tools Observability
3

Related MCP Servers

git MCP serverofficial
Version Control Developer Tools
modelcontextprotocol
A
license
B
quality
A
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol server for Git repository interaction and automation. This server provides tools to read, search, and manipulate Git repositories via Large Language Models.
Updated 19 days ago (2026-09-03 01:42 UTC)
12
32,924 PyPI
90,399
MIT
GitHub MCP Server
Version Control Agent Orchestration
Jehan26
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol server that enables AI assistants like Claude to interact with GitHub repositories, issues, and pull requests.
Updated 2 years ago (2025-03-16 10:14 UTC)
16 npm
MIT
MCP Git Server
Version Control Developer Tools
martinsky999
A
license
B
quality
D
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol server that enables LLMs to interact with Git repositories, providing tools to read, search, and manipulate Git repositories through commands like status, diff, commit, and branch management.
Updated a year ago (2025-05-28 06:22 UTC)
12
MIT
MCP Git Server
Version Control Developer Tools
MementoRC
A
license
C
quality
B
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol server that enables LLMs to interact with Git repositories, providing tools to read, search, and manipulate Git repositories through commands like status, diff, commit, and branch operations.
Updated 4 days ago (2026-09-17 14:59 UTC)
22
4
MIT

Git 提示 MCP 服务器

安装

手动安装

用法

作为 Zed Editor 的 MCP 服务器

命令

执照

Available Tools

Output Schema

TDQS

Output Schema

TDQS

Output Schema

TDQS

Tool Schema Changelog

TDQS

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

git MCP serverofficial

GitHub MCP Server

MCP Git Server

MCP Git Server

Appeared in Searches