pi-web-mcp

看项目 git 改动

piweb_git_status

Read-only

Inspect a project directory's Git status to verify agent changes: current branch, repository root, modified files with status codes, and added/deleted line counts.

Instructions

看某个项目目录的 git 状态：分支仓库根、改了哪些文件（状态码）、增删行数。用来验收 agent 到底动了什么。

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": {
      "cwd": "<cwd>"
    },
    "name": "piweb_git_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cwd`	Yes	项目目录的绝对路径

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about what the tool surfaces: branch/repo root, changed files and their status codes, and added/deleted line counts. It still omits operational details such as error behavior or handling of untracked files.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what is returned, and the second states the operational purpose. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only git status tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains return content and intended use. It is only slightly incomplete because it does not distinguish git status from git diff, a sibling that an agent may need to choose between.

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?

The schema already documents the single required parameter cwd as an absolute project path, with 100% schema description coverage. The description only repeats '某个项目目录' and adds no syntax, path constraints, or edge-case guidance beyond the schema, so 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: viewing the git status of a project directory, and lists the concrete output (branch/repo root, changed files with status codes, added/deleted line counts). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling piweb_git_diff, which likely overlaps in inspecting changes.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear context for use: '用来验收 agent 到底动了什么' (to verify what an agent changed). It does not state when-not to use it or name piweb_git_diff as an alternative for detailed diffs, so it stops short of explicit routing guidance.

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