Inspect and capture Git status, branch, HEAD commit, and diff check into an evidence bundle without modifying the repository.
Safely inspects and captures Git state (status, branch, HEAD commit, diff check) without mutating the repo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bundleId | Yes | The unique identifier of the evidence bundle. | |
| workspacePath | No | Optional workspace path hint if running outside default cwd. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is safe and non-mutating ('without mutating the repo'), but it does not describe permissions, failure behavior, or what happens if the workspace is not a Git repository.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. The most important constraints, Git capture and non-mutation, appear immediately.
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 description is adequate for a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, but with no annotations and no output schema it should say more about what is returned or how the captured state is represented. It is minimally viable rather than complete.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add meaning about bundleId or workspacePath beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it inspects and captures Git state, and it enumerates the relevant Git fields (status, branch, HEAD commit, diff check). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as snapshot_files or record_command_result, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like snapshot_files, record_command_result, or create_evidence_bundle. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'captures Git state' and the mention of an evidence bundle.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.