git_rebaseRebase the current branch onto an upstream branch, with options to abort or continue conflicted rebases.
Rebase onto upstream; abort/continue conflicted rebases.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cont | No | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| abort | No | ||
| upstream | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds the abort/continue behavior, which is beyond what annotations provide. However, it doesn't disclose that rebase rewrites history or that conflicts may arise beyond the phrase 'conflicted rebases'. Since annotations cover the destructive aspect, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the main action and secondary modes. It is efficient, but slightly under-specified given the tool's complexity. Still, it earns a 4 for being well-structured with no redundancy.
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?
The tool has 4 parameters, 1 required, 0% schema coverage, and a destructive annotation. The description is far too brief to be complete. It omits the required path parameter, does not explain when abort/continue should be used, and lacks details on output or error behavior. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional info.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'upstream' and 'abort/continue' but does not explain the required 'path' parameter, nor does it clarify what 'abort' and 'cont' do beyond the words. The description adds minimal semantic value for a 4-parameter tool with zero schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the action: 'Rebase onto upstream' and mentions the abort/continue functionality. It specifies the resource (git rebase) and is distinguishable from sibling git tools like merge or reset. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from alternatives like git_merge or git_reset, so it's not a perfect 5.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that rebase should be used for linear history or that merge might be preferred in certain workflows. It provides no exclusions or conditions for when to use abort/continue.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.