Skip to main content
Glama

git_unstage

Destructive

Unstages specified paths from Git's index while preserving working files, even when the repository has no commits yet.

Instructions

Unstage explicit paths while preserving working files, including unborn HEAD.

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": {
      "paths": "<paths>"
    },
    "name": "git_unstage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathsYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
changesYes
updatesNo
conflictsYes
operationYes
head_afterYes
head_beforeYes
process_idsYes
synchronization_errorNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.5.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a mutating, non-read-only, destructive operation, so the description's job is to clarify the scope of that destruction. It does exactly that by stating working files are preserved and that the operation also works with an unborn HEAD (no commits yet), which is genuinely useful behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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 zero filler. Every clause ('explicit paths', 'preserving working files', 'unborn HEAD') carries 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 one-parameter tool with an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose, side effects, and an edge case. It only lacks guidance on failure modes and sibling routing, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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?

Only one parameter (paths) exists and schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry some weight. Saying 'explicit paths' signals that paths must be enumerated rather than patterns, but it says nothing about path format, relative-vs-absolute handling, or what happens when a listed path is not staged.

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 and resource: unstaging explicit paths. The scope qualifier 'explicit paths' plus the 'preserving working files' note makes the operation distinguishable from git_stage and git_restore, though no sibling is named directly.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as git_restore or git_stage. The agent must infer from the name that this undoes staging without touching the working tree.

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