Skip to main content
Glama
martinsky999

MCP Git Server

by martinsky999

git_init

Initialize a new Git repository by setting up the necessary structure and configuration files to start version control for your project.

Instructions

Initialize a new Git repository

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repo_pathYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the git_init tool logic: initializes a new Git repository at the given repo_path using git.Repo.init.
    def git_init(repo_path: str) -> str:
        try:
            repo = git.Repo.init(path=repo_path, mkdir=True)
            return f"Initialized empty Git repository in {repo.git_dir}"
        except Exception as e:
            return f"Error initializing repository: {str(e)}"
  • Pydantic model defining the input schema for the git_init tool (requires repo_path: str).
    class GitInit(BaseModel):
        repo_path: str
  • Registration of the git_init tool in the server's list_tools() handler, specifying name, description, and input schema.
    Tool(
        name=GitTools.INIT,
        description="Initialize a new Git repository",
        inputSchema=GitInit.schema(),
    )
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Initialize a new Git repository' implies a write operation that creates files (like .git directory), but it doesn't disclose critical traits such as permissions required, whether it overwrites existing repos, error handling, or output format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations), 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meaning, error cases, and return values. For a tool that initializes repositories—a potentially destructive action if misused—this minimal description fails to provide enough context for safe and effective use.

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?

The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter (repo_path), the schema only gives a title and type. The description doesn't explain what repo_path represents (e.g., local directory path), its format, or constraints. However, since there's only one parameter and the tool's purpose is straightforward, the baseline is 3, as the schema minimally defines the input without description compensation.

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?

The description 'Initialize a new Git repository' clearly states the action (initialize) and resource (Git repository), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like git_add or git_commit by focusing on repository creation rather than file operations or commits. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., git_create_branch might also involve initialization aspects), keeping it from 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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an empty directory), when-not scenarios (e.g., if a repo already exists), or direct alternatives among siblings. This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone, which is minimal guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/martinsky999/mcp-git-py'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server