Retrieve structured Git status for a task workspace or repository, showing uncommitted changes and state to aid code review and verification.
Returns structured Git status for a task workspace or configured repository
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | No | Task ID (queries task workspace) | |
| repository | No | Repository alias (queries repository root) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Returns structured Git status' implies a read-only operation and hints at the return shape, but it does not disclose edge-case behavior, failure modes, or what happens when both/neither parameter is supplied.
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?
A single sentence with no filler. The key information—what is returned and for what targets—is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.
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?
The tool is simple (two optional params, no output schema), and the description covers the core purpose. However, it omits behavior when no parameter is provided or both are provided, and does not orient the agent relative to the sibling diff/list tools.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds little beyond the schema, only reaffirming that the status applies to either a task workspace or a repository root. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Returns'), resource ('structured Git status'), and scope ('task workspace or configured repository'), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_diff, but the name and object are sufficiently distinct.
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 provides clear context about the two target modes (task workspace vs configured repository), which is implied by the parameters. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_diff, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.