Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
worktree-tools-mcp

worktree-tools-mcp

by georgeasoto
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

worktree_status

Check worktree status to see if working directory is clean, commits ahead or behind master, and if ready for a pull request.

Instructions

Get the status of a worktree. Shows if working directory is clean, commits ahead/behind master, and if ready for PR.

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": {
      "worktreePath": "<worktreePath>"
    },
    "name": "worktree_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
worktreePathYesPath to the worktree to check

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the output content but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, error handling, or return format. Adequate but not detailed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every word adds value. No unnecessary information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and output. Minor omission: no mention of error conditions or return format, but still largely complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter fully described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status of a worktree'). It elaborates on what the status includes (clean, ahead/behind master, ready for PR), distinguishing it from siblings like list_worktrees or create_worktree.

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?

The description implies when to use (checking worktree status) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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