Stages all changes and commits them, generating a commit message with a local model when none is provided while excluding sensitive files like .env and keys.
Adiciona todas as mudanças e commita. Sem mensagem, o modelo local escreve uma.
Arquivos sensíveis (.env, chaves) nunca são commitados.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pasta | Yes | ||
| mensagem | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two genuinely useful behaviors: a local model auto-writes the message when none is given, and sensitive files (.env, keys) are never committed. However it omits key traits an agent needs: whether staging includes deletions/untracked files, whether the commit is local-only, and any prerequisites or failure modes.
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?
Two short sentences with no waste; the staging scope is front-loaded and the sensitive-file caveat follows. Slightly terse for a mutation tool, but nothing is padding.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a commit tool with zero schema coverage the required `pasta` parameter and the exact scope of "todas as mudanças" remain undefined. The definition is thinner than the tool's mutation complexity warrants.
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 0%, so the description must supply all parameter meaning. It explains the optional `mensagem` fallback behavior well, but the required `pasta` parameter is never mentioned or defined, leaving the agent to guess whether it is a repo root, a subfolder, or a path filter.
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?
"Adiciona todas as mudanças e commita" states a specific verb (commit) and the staging behavior (adds all changes), which implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like git_push or git_status. It is clear what the tool does, but it never explicitly names the alternatives it is not, leaving sibling differentiation to inference.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing about running it after git_pull, on which branch, or how it relates to git_push. The agent must infer the whole workflow position of this tool from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.