de en es ja ko ru zh

MCP Git Enhanced

Name: MCP Git Enhanced
Author: davidweb3-ctrl

by davidweb3-ctrl

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

🦞 MCP Git Enhanced

Tests Coverage License

一个增强型 Git MCP（模型上下文协议）服务器，为 AI 助手提供强大的代码审查、提交分析和分支管理功能。

功能特性

🔍 代码差异分析 - 比较提交、分支或工作目录的变更
📊 提交历史分析 - 深入洞察提交模式和贡献者
🌿 分支管理 - 列出、比较分支并提供清理建议
📈 仓库状态 - 全面的工作目录概览
🔎 提交分析 - 详细的单次提交检查

Related MCP server: pr-mcp-server

安装

从 npm 安装（发布后）

npm install -g @bountyclaw/mcp-git-enhanced

从源码安装

git clone https://github.com/bountyclaw/mcp-git-enhanced.git
cd mcp-git-enhanced
npm install
npm run build

与 Claude Code 配合使用

添加到您的 Claude Code 配置文件 (~/.claude/settings.json) 中：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "git-enhanced": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["@bountyclaw/mcp-git-enhanced"]
    }
  }
}

或者用于本地开发：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "git-enhanced": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/path/to/mcp-git-enhanced/dist/index.js"]
    }
  }
}

可用工具

git_diff

分析提交、分支或工作目录之间的代码变更。

{
  "repoPath": "/absolute/path/to/repo",
  "target": "HEAD~5",
  "source": "HEAD~10",
  "filePath": "src/",
  "staged": false
}

git_log

通过过滤和统计信息分析提交历史。

{
  "repoPath": "/absolute/path/to/repo",
  "maxCount": 20,
  "author": "John Doe",
  "since": "1 week ago",
  "stat": true
}

git_branch

管理和分析 git 分支。

{
  "repoPath": "/absolute/path/to/repo",
  "action": "list|compare|suggest_cleanup",
  "includeRemote": true
}

git_status

获取全面的仓库状态。

{
  "repoPath": "/absolute/path/to/repo",
  "short": false
}

git_commit_analyze

详细分析特定的提交。

{
  "repoPath": "/absolute/path/to/repo",
  "commitHash": "abc123"
}

使用案例示例

代码审查

"Show me the diff between main and the feature branch"
"What files changed in the last 5 commits?"
"Analyze the impact of commit abc123"

仓库健康状况

"List all branches that can be safely deleted"
"Show me commits from the last week"
"Who are the top contributors to this project?"

工作目录

"What's the current status of my repo?"
"Show me the staged changes"
"What files have uncommitted changes?"

开发

# Install dependencies
npm install

# Build
npm run build

# Watch mode
npm run dev

# Test locally
node dist/index.js

测试

本项目使用 Jest 进行测试，涵盖了所有 Git 工具处理程序的全面覆盖。

# Run all tests
npm test

# Run tests with coverage report
npm run test:coverage

# Run tests in watch mode
npm run test:watch

覆盖率报告

文件	语句	分支	函数	行
tools.ts	98%+	95%+	100%	98%+

测试结构

src/__tests__/tools.test.ts - 所有 5 个 Git 工具处理程序的单元测试
- git_diff - 7 个测试用例
- git_log - 13 个测试用例
- git_branch - 10 个测试用例（列出、比较、建议清理）
- git_status - 5 个测试用例
- git_commit_analyze - 4 个测试用例

代码质量

# Run ESLint
npm run lint

# Fix ESLint issues
npm run lint:fix

# Format with Prettier
npm run format

# Check formatting
npm run format:check

要求

Node.js >= 18.0.0
已安装 Git 并可在 PATH 中访问

许可证

MIT

贡献

欢迎贡献！请阅读 CONTRIBUTING.md 了解详情。

由 BountyClaw 倾力打造 🦞

Available Tools

5 tools

git_branchB

Manage and analyze git branches. Provides branch listing, comparison, and management suggestions.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repoPath`	Yes	Absolute path to the git repository
`action`	Yes	Action to perform: list branches, compare branches, or suggest cleanup
`branchName`	No	Branch name for specific operations
`baseBranch`	No	Base branch for comparison (default: main or master)
`includeRemote`	No	Include remote branches in listing

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description does not disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read vs write, side effects of 'suggest cleanup'). Only high-level actions are mentioned without deeper context.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

One sentence, but it is generic and not packed with information. Could be more concise while including key details.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema and description does not explain return values or usage context for the three actions. For a tool with 5 parameters, the description is too brief.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with adequate field descriptions. Description adds no extra parameter information beyond schema, meeting the baseline.

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?

Description clearly states 'Manage and analyze git branches' with specific actions 'branch listing, comparison, and management suggestions'. It distinguishes from siblings like git_commit_analyze and git_status which cover different aspects.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tool names provide some context but the description lacks when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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

git_commit_analyzeB

Analyze a specific commit in detail including changed files, statistics, and impact.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repoPath`	Yes	Absolute path to the git repository
`commitHash`	No	Commit hash to analyze (default: HEAD)

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'changed files, statistics, and impact' but does not disclose what 'impact' means, potential error states, or performance implications for large commits.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and object, containing no redundant information. It earns its place with precise wording.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Without an output schema, the description should elaborate on return values (e.g., format, key fields). It only vaguely mentions 'changed files, statistics, and impact,' leaving the agent guessing about the tool's full output.

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?

Both parameters are well-documented in the schema (repoPath and commitHash with default). The description adds no further detail for individual parameters, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance meaning.

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 tool analyzes a specific commit in detail, including changed files, statistics, and impact. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like git_diff (diff analysis) and git_log (history) by focusing on a single commit's comprehensive breakdown.

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 description implies usage when a detailed analysis of a specific commit is needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons with alternatives like git_diff for detailed file changes.

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

git_diffB

Analyze code changes between commits, branches, or working directory. Provides detailed diff analysis with statistics and file categorization.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repoPath`	Yes	Absolute path to the git repository
`target`	No	Target to diff against (commit hash, branch name, or 'HEAD'). If omitted, shows uncommitted changes.
`source`	No	Source to diff from (commit hash, branch name). If omitted with target, diffs target against working directory.
`filePath`	No	Specific file or directory path to diff (relative to repo root)
`staged`	No	Show staged changes only (git diff --cached)

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the output as 'detailed diff analysis' but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention any side effects, auth needs, or rate limits.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description provides a high-level overview but lacks details about return format, limits, or how statistics and categorization are presented. With no output schema, this leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 tool analyzes code changes between commits, branches, or the working directory. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like git_log (history) and git_status (working tree status) by focusing specifically on diff analysis with statistics and categorization.

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 like git_log or git_commit_analyze. It only implies usage for diffing but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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

git_logC

Analyze commit history with filtering and statistics. Provides insights into commit patterns, contributors, and code evolution.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repoPath`	Yes	Absolute path to the git repository
`maxCount`	No	Maximum number of commits to show (default: 20)
`author`	No	Filter commits by author name or email
`since`	No	Show commits more recent than date (e.g., '2024-01-01', '1 week ago')
`until`	No	Show commits older than date
`filePath`	No	Show commits affecting specific file or directory
`branch`	No	Branch to log (default: current branch)
`oneline`	No	Show commits in one-line format
`stat`	No	Include file change statistics

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not state that the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. Merely mentioning 'analyze' does not disclose safety constraints.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No redundant words. Could be slightly more structured, but it's efficient and easy to parse.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema. The description does not explain return format, pagination, or how results are structured. For example, it doesn't say whether it returns plain list or statistical summary.

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?

Input schema covers all 9 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 it 'analyze commit history' with filtering and statistics, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like git_branch or git_diff, but could be more precise about what kind of analysis (e.g., 'list commits' vs. 'analyze patterns').

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like git_commit_analyze or git_diff. The description implies general history analysis but does not specify scenarios or exclusions.

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

git_statusC

Get comprehensive repository status including staged, unstaged, and untracked files.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repoPath`	Yes	Absolute path to the git repository
`short`	No	Show short format output

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves status (implied read-only) but does not disclose any other behavioral traits, side effects, or constraints beyond the basic function.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action. Its brevity is appropriate, though it could benefit from slightly more structure.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should explain return values. It mentions types of files included but lacks detail on output format. Adequate for a simple tool but not comprehensive.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. Description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only mentions 'comprehensive status' without linking to parameters.

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?

Clearly states the tool gets repository status and specifies it includes staged, unstaged, and untracked files. This distinguishes it from siblings like git_diff or git_log, but does not explicitly compare to them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like git_diff or git_log. Description implies usage for status but does not provide context or exclusions.

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.

5 tool updatesv1.0.2Jun 4, 2026
- First observedgit_branch
- First observedgit_commit_analyze
- First observedgit_diff
- First observedgit_log
- First observedgit_status

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

B3.4/5.0

Scored 2026-06-04 05:55 across 5 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct aspect of git: branches, commits, diffs, log history, and repository status. No functional overlap exists.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools follow 'git_' prefix with descriptive nouns, but 'git_commit_analyze' deviates slightly from the single-noun pattern of the others.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools cover essential analysis operations without being excessive or insufficient for the server's stated analytical focus.

Completeness3/5

Tools provide broad analysis coverage but lack creation or modification operations (e.g., no commit creation, branch creation beyond suggestions), leaving notable gaps for full git workflows.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessUnresponsive

Resources

Need Help?

Related Servers

Related MCP Connectors

Gluecron B
com.gluecron
AI-native git hosting — repos, PRs, issues, CI gates, and AI code review over MCP (60 tools).
Version Control CI/CD & DevOps Code Analysis
622
neverinfamous-memory-journal-mcp
ai.smithery
A MCP server built for developers enabling Git based project management with project and personal…
Version Control Developer Tools Project Management
320
driflyte-mcp-server
com.driflyte
Driflyte MCP server which lets AI assistants query topic-specific knowledge from web and GitHub.
Search Web Scraping Knowledge & Memory
211
GitHubOAuth
io.github.github
Connect AI assistants to GitHub - manage repos, issues, PRs, and workflows through natural language.
Version Control Developer Tools CI/CD & DevOps
1233,136

Related MCP Servers

Git MCP Server
Version Control Developer Tools Code Execution
Sheshiyer
F
license
B
quality
D
maintenance
The Git MCP Server allows AI assistants to perform enhanced Git operations via the Model Context Protocol, supporting core Git functions, branch and tag management, GitHub integration, and more.
Updated 2 years ago (2025-02-12 14:21 UTC)
21
99 npm
6
-
pr-mcp-server
Version Control Code Analysis Developer Tools
valentin-harrang
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
MCP server to automate Pull Request creation with AI. Analyzes Git branches, generates descriptions, titles, suggests reviewers, and performs code reviews.
Updated a year ago (2025-10-30 15:17 UTC)
8
4
MIT
Git MCP Server
wty0512
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
An MCP server that provides tools for interacting with Git repositories, enabling AI assistants to manage repositories, branches, commits, and files through a standardized interface.
Updated a year ago (2025-04-01 04:53 UTC)
3,381 npm
1
Apache 2.0
mcp-server-grf
Version Control Developer Tools
haiyewei
A
license
D
quality
D
maintenance
MCP server for managing Git reference repositories, enabling AI assistants to add, load, and sync reference code from any Git repository.
Updated 9 months ago (2026-01-03 17:08 UTC)
12
2 npm
MIT