Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ForgeMCP

ForgeMCP

by hardened-steel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

git_status

Read-only

Inspect the current branch, staged and unstaged changes, and unfinished Git operations to assess repository state before committing or building.

Instructions

Inspect branch, index/worktree changes, and unfinished Git operations.

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_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
headNo
aheadNo
behindNo
branchNo
entriesNo
upstreamNo
operationNo
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 covered. The description adds genuinely extra behavior: it will report in-progress operations (merges/rebases/conflicts) alongside index and worktree changes, which an agent would not otherwise expect from a plain "status" tool. Return shape is covered by the output schema.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the core resource (branch state) is front-loaded ahead of the secondary reporting scope. Every clause adds distinct 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?

For a zero-argument, read-only inspection tool with a declared output schema, this covers what is inspected and hints at the in-progress-operation reporting. The only shortfall is the lack of guidance on how it relates to the many adjacent query tools.

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. Baseline of 4 applies; no parameter text is required.

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 specific verb ("Inspect") and three concrete resources: branch, index/worktree changes, and unfinished Git operations. An agent immediately knows this reports working-tree state, not history or diffs. It stops short of naming the overlapping siblings (git_branches, git_diff) that also surface some of this information.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternatives are named despite many overlapping siblings. Usage is only implied by the scope enumeration (check state before staging or committing). An agent must infer the routing itself.

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