Retrieve a bounded, read-only Git status summary to check workspace changes without listing untracked filenames. Use it to inspect repository state safely and avoid overwhelming output.
Return bounded read-only Git status; no untracked filenames are enumerated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that the operation is read-only and that output is bounded with untracked filenames suppressed, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It stops short of quantifying 'bounded' (limits, truncation markers) or stating which repository/workspace is inspected, which matters given zero parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single compact sentence that front-loads the read-only and bounded traits before the untracked-filename caveat. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the read-only/bounded traits cover the safety profile. What is missing is the routing information an agent needs: the distinction from the coexisting git_status sibling and a concrete sense of how much history/scope the 'bounded' result covers.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb and resource ('Return ... Git status') plus a scope qualifier ('bounded read-only', 'no untracked filenames are enumerated'). However, the sibling list contains both git_status and git_repository_status, and the description never says how these two differ, leaving an agent to guess which one to call.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The phrase 'bounded' hints that this is the safer choice for large or noisy repositories, but that inference is never stated, and the obvious near-duplicate sibling git_status is not mentioned at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.