git_tagManage Git tags by listing existing ones or creating and deleting tags with user approval for changes.
List/create/delete tags. list is read-only; create/delete prompt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| action | No | list | |
| message | 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?
The description discloses that list is read-only while create/delete prompt, adding meaningful behavior beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint and non-read-only, but the prompt behavior is extra context that helps an agent anticipate side effects.
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 extremely concise: one short sentence carries the core behavior and a key safety distinction. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse.
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 output schema likely covers return values, but the parameter semantics are underspecified given the 0% schema description coverage. The description does not clarify the meaning of path/name/message or what 'prompt' entails in practice, leaving an agent to guess at call structure.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters, but it only hints at action values (list/create/delete). It does not explain the roles of path, name, or message, nor why path is required. This is a significant gap for correct invocation.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List/create/delete tags.' Combined with the title 'Git tag', it clearly states what the tool does. It is unambiguous and distinguishable from the many sibling Git tools.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as git_branch for branch operations or git_commit for commits. The description implies tag-management usage but does not give explicit context, exclusions, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.