git-mcp-server

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe read-only nature. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the schema, such as pagination behavior (despite skip/maxCount parameters), performance characteristics for large repositories, or how output formats differ between full and oneline modes.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the core action ('View commit history') and efficiently lists the primary filtering capabilities. No redundant or filler text; every clause earns its place.

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?

Given the 13 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient high-level orientation. It covers the primary use case (filtered history viewing) adequately, though it could mention pagination or output format variations given the parameter richness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by grouping four parameters under the 'filtering' concept (author, date range, file path, message pattern), but does not elaborate on the remaining 9 parameters including output modifiers (oneline, stat, patch) or pagination controls.

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 clearly states the tool views commit history and specifically mentions the filtering dimensions (author, date range, file path, message pattern), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_show (single commit details) or git_diff (file comparisons).

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 usage through 'View commit history' but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like git_show for single commits or git_reflog for reference logs. Usage is clear from context but lacks explicit comparative guidance.

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