Lists a Git repository's remotes with their fetch and push URLs, redacting embedded credentials, to help inspect configured remote connections.
Lists the repository's remotes with their fetch and push URLs, like git remote -v. Credentials embedded in a URL are shown as
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo_path | Yes | The path to the Git repository. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail beyond them: what the output contains (fetch and push URLs) and that credentials embedded in URLs are masked as <redacted>, which matters for how an agent interprets results.
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?
Two tight sentences with no filler: the first states what is listed, the second discloses the redaction behavior. The core purpose is front-loaded and the caveat follows logically.
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?
With no output schema, the description properly compensates by stating what is returned, and it flags the redaction behavior an agent would otherwise misinterpret. For a single-parameter read-only tool, nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it correctly is missing.
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?
There is one parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents `repo_path` as 'The path to the Git repository.' The description adds nothing further about the parameter, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, but it means no extra meaning is contributed.
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 pairs the specific verb 'lists' with the precise resource 'the repository's remotes with their fetch and push URLs,' and anchors it to a well-known equivalent (`git remote -v`). That framing makes it unmistakably distinct from every sibling tool, which all concern diffs, commits, branches, merges and logs.
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?
The `git remote -v` analogy gives an agent a clear mental model of when this tool applies (inspecting configured remotes), and no alternatives among the siblings serve that purpose. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance, but there is little ambiguity to resolve for a single-purpose read tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.