Agent-Blackbox MCP

driftguard_git_shadow_checkpoint

Create a native Git shadow checkpoint without moving HEAD or altering active work branches, so you can snapshot workspace state safely before risky changes.

Instructions

Crea un checkpoint ombra nativo Git (senza spostare l'HEAD dell'utente né sporcare i branch di lavoro attivi).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "driftguard_git_shadow_checkpoint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`label`	No	Etichetta descrittiva del checkpoint ombra.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.0.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the critical side-effect profile: HEAD is not moved and active working branches are not dirtied. It does not say where the shadow checkpoint lives, whether a Git repo must be present, what permissions are needed, or how the checkpoint can later be found or restored.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and qualified by a parenthetical that earns its place by conveying the non-destructive guarantee. No filler, though it is perhaps terse given the operational stakes.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is close to adequate, but with no annotations the description should still cover prerequisites (Git repo requirement), where the checkpoint is stored, and how it relates to the snapshot/rollback siblings. Those operational facts are missing.

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?

There is a single optional parameter ('label') and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it. The description adds nothing about the label's purpose or format; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb and resource: 'Crea un checkpoint ombra nativo Git'. The parenthetical clarifies scope (non-destructive to HEAD and working branches), which separates it from a plain snapshot. However, it never names driftguard_create_snapshot or driftguard_list_snapshots, so the agent must infer the distinction from names alone.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage context is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer 'use this when you want a checkpoint that doesn't disturb the working tree', but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (e.g. driftguard_create_snapshot) is given.

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