local-agent-mcp

by ezra-y

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Get Git status

git_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a project's Git status to identify branch, HEAD, and changes (modified, staged, untracked).

Instructions

Return branch, HEAD, modified, staged, and untracked files.

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": "git_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Aug 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds specific output fields (branch, HEAD, modified, staged, untracked), which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions and no side effects are mentioned, but read-only makes that unnecessary.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action 'Return' and immediately lists the returned data. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the return values but omits explanation of the required 'project' parameter. Given 0% schema coverage, this is a notable gap. No prerequisites or error conditions are mentioned, but these may not be critical for such a straightforward operation.

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?

The sole parameter 'project' has 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what 'project' should be (e.g., path, name, or repository identifier), leaving the agent to guess the argument format. With such low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate but did not.

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?

Clearly states the tool returns branch, HEAD, modified, staged, and untracked files. This is a specific verb and resource list, distinguishing it from siblings like git_diff and git_commit. The content list provides unambiguous scope.

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 over siblings like git_diff or git_commit. The description implies it's for checking repo state but doesn't state when not to use it or what conditions favor it. Given overlapping siblings, more direction would help the agent choose correctly.

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