Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ForgeMCP

ForgeMCP

by hardened-steel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

git_remotes

Read-only

List configured Git remotes with credential-redacted fetch and push URLs to inspect repository connections safely.

Instructions

List configured remotes with credential-redacted fetch/push URLs.

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": "git_remotes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
remotesYes
process_idsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.5.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing that URLs are credential-redacted, which tells the agent the output is safe to surface. It stops short of describing ordering or what happens when no remotes are configured.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every phrase (list, configured, credential-redacted, fetch/push) carries information. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description is complete for this simple tool, with only a minor gap around empty-state or ordering behavior that an agent would rarely need.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. It correctly avoids inventing or restating parameters that do not exist.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List configured remotes') and adds a distinguishing detail about credential-redacted fetch/push URLs. It is unambiguous and no sibling tool in the list covers remotes, so an agent can select it without confusion, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with neighbors like git_fetch or git_push.

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 is only implied: an agent infers it should call this to discover what remotes exist before fetch/push operations. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or exclusion, but for a zero-parameter read-only inspection tool the need for lengthy guidance is low.

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