Inspect git diff in a repository before committing changes, optionally viewing staged changes only.
Inspect git diff in a repository before committing mutations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| staged | No | Whether to view staged diff only | |
| repository | Yes | Repository name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only inspection, but does not state whether the operation is side-effect free, what the return format is, whether the working tree or a specific commit is diffed, or any safety/permission requirements.
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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Nothing is wasted, though the trailing clause is doing more usage work than strict concision.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate more than it does. It omits what the diff returns (e.g., whether it includes staged/unstaged by default), leaving a read-only inspection tool slightly under-specified for an agent to call confidently.
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 'staged' and 'repository' are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description's context about inspecting before commits adds framing but no syntax or default-value detail beyond what the schema supplies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('git diff in a repository'), which is enough to separate it from siblings like git_status and create_commit. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with git_status, which is the closest alternative, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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?
'before committing mutations' does imply a usage context (call this prior to create_commit), which is more than nothing. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no naming of the alternative git_status, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.