ForgeMCP

by hardened-steel

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

git_continue

Destructive

Resume, abort, or skip stopped Git merge, rebase, cherry-pick, or revert operations after staging conflict resolutions.

Instructions

Continue, abort, or skip a stopped operation after explicitly staging resolutions.

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "git_continue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	Yes
`operation`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`changes`	Yes
`updates`	No
`conflicts`	Yes
`operation`	Yes
`head_after`	Yes
`head_before`	Yes
`process_ids`	Yes
`synchronization_error`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.5.1Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds useful context that the target must be an already-stopped operation requiring staged resolutions, but it does not disclose what 'abort' discards, what 'skip' omits, or whether the action must match an in-progress operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the precondition is placed where it will be read first. It is efficiently sized, though the extreme compression is part of why parameter and behavioral detail is missing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the destructive profile. For a mutation tool that can discard conflict resolutions, the description is still thin on the consequences of abort/skip and on how the operation is identified, which an agent needs before invoking it safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it only echoes the three action values without explaining their effects. The 'operation' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving the agent to infer whether it is required, auto-detected, or must match the in-progress operation.

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 set of verbs (continue, abort, skip) acting on a specific resource (a stopped operation), which distinguishes it from the initiating siblings git_merge, git_rebase, git_cherry_pick and git_revert. It is weakened slightly because 'stopped operation' is never tied to the concrete operation kinds (merge/rebase/cherry-pick/revert) that the schema enumerates.

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?

One clear precondition is given ('after explicitly staging resolutions'), which tells the agent this is a resume step rather than a fresh operation. However, there is no guidance on verifying the stopped state first (e.g., git_status or git_conflicts), no statement of when not to call it, and no clarification of which action to choose for which situation.

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

Deploy Server