git-mcp-server

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

The annotation declares readOnlyHint=true, confirming safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it specifies that the tool displays both metadata ('commit information') and content changes ('diff'), clarifying what output to expect. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two efficient sentences with zero waste. The first establishes scope (object types), the second establishes output (info + diff). Information is front-loaded and appropriately brief given the rich schema and output schema coverage.

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 100% schema coverage, existing readOnlyHint annotation, and presence of an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on high-level purpose rather than repeating parameter or return value details. Minor gap: doesn't mention the single-file viewing capability (filePath param) in prose, though this is covered in schema.

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 schema fully documents all 5 parameters including the filePath single-file view and stat diffstat option. The description provides high-level context ('git object') but doesn't add parameter-specific semantics, syntax examples, or interaction rules (e.g., how filePath modifies the object view).

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 'shows details of a git object' and lists specific object types (commit, tree, blob, tag). It specifies the dual output of 'commit information and the diff,' which clarifies intent. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling git_diff, which also displays diffs.

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 by specifying which git objects can be inspected (commits, blobs, trees, tags), but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over git_diff or git_log. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., valid object reference format) and exclusion criteria.

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