Beat Saber Modding Tools MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_git_info

Read-only

Retrieve a project repository’s commit hash, branch, modified state, origin URL, and GitHub owner to inspect and verify its Git status.

Instructions

Return commit hash, branch, modified state, origin URL and GitHub owner for the project repository.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project": "<project>"
    },
    "name": "get_git_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project`	Yes
`hash_length`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that five specific pieces of state are returned, but says nothing about behavior on a non-git project (error vs. null fields) or whether any remote lookup occurs for the GitHub owner.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned fields are listed compactly and nothing in it is redundant padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not enumerate return values, yet it spends its only sentence doing exactly that while omitting what matters more: parameter meanings and non-git-repository behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps for a two-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the two parameters and it does not. "project" is never described, and "hash_length" is only obliquely hinted at by the phrase "commit hash" without stating that it controls abbreviation of the returned hash.

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?

A specific verb ("Return") plus the resource (git info for the project repository), with five enumerated fields that make the scope concrete. It does not name or contrast with any sibling such as inspect_project or get_assembly_info, so the differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read path for repository metadata, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over siblings, no prerequisites (e.g. the project must be a git repo), and no exclusions.

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