Merge a specified source branch into the current branch. If conflicts occur, it aborts the merge and lists the conflicting files for resolution.
Faz merge de 'origem' na branch atual. Em conflito, desfaz e lista os arquivos.
Merge na main/master exige confirmado=true, que só deve ser passado com o OK do usuário.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pasta | Yes | ||
| origem | Yes | ||
| confirmado | 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 load and does disclose a key behavior: on conflict the merge is undone and the affected files are listed, so the agent knows the operation is atomic. It also flags the safety gate on main/master. It leaves unstated whether a successful merge creates a commit or only fast-forwards.
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: the core action plus conflict behavior first, then the confirmation rule. Nothing redundant and nothing buried.
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, and the mutation/rollback semantics plus the confirmation gate are covered. The remaining gap is the meaning of the required 'pasta' parameter, which an agent must guess.
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 meaning, and it does for 'origem' (the branch being merged in) and 'confirmado' (only with user approval, mandatory for main/master). The required 'pasta' parameter is never explained — presumably the repository/working directory — leaving one of three parameters undefined in both description and schema.
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?
States a specific verb (merge) and the exact resource/scope: 'origem' merged into the current branch. An agent can separate this from siblings like git_pull or git_commit without opening any schema.
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?
Gives explicit conditional guidance for the optional flag: merging into main/master requires confirmado=true, and it should only be passed with the user's OK. It does not name an alternative tool (e.g. git_pull) or say when not to merge, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.