Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
git-finder-mcp

git-finder-mcp

by dudckd6744
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

add_project

Registers a local Git project so you can search its code, view file trees, and read files.

Instructions

로컬 경로의 Git 프로젝트를 등록합니다. 등록된 프로젝트는 search_code, get_file_tree, read_file로 검색할 수 있습니다.

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "add_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes프로젝트 이름 (예: payment-service)
pathYes프로젝트의 로컬 절대 경로 (예: /Users/box/work/my-monorepo/packages/payment)
descriptionNo프로젝트 설명 (예: 결제/주문 처리 서비스)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides a meaningful post-condition ('registered projects can be searched') and an implicit prerequisite ('Git project at local path'). However, it omits details like idempotency, duplicate handling, or whether the path is validated.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by context about post-registration usage. No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple registration tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description gives enough context: what it does and what it enables. It could mention errors or return values, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (path, name, description). The tool description does not add extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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's action ('register a Git project at a local path') and its resource, and immediately distinguishes it from search-oriented siblings by noting that registered projects become searchable via search_code, get_file_tree, and read_file.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool: before using the search tools on a project. It clearly positions add_project as a prerequisite for those tools, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives like remove_project or list_projects.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools