Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TrustHarness

TrustHarness

by ofirtro
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

push_commit

Simulate a commit push and record the action for security testing, allowing verification of agent behavior without real systems.

Instructions

Record a simulated commit push.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "push_commit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentNo
messageYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the push is 'simulated,' which hints at a non-real action, but it does not explain side effects, whether state is modified, or what the response looks like. The lack of detail on behavior is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short (one sentence, five words), which is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. While it is front-loaded, it fails to provide enough substance to be useful, similar to the 'Process' example in the calibration.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool has two parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a non-trivial action (push simulation), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not cover prerequisites, side effects, result format, or relationship to other tools, making it inadequate for an agent to use safely and correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description provides no explanation of the 'message' or 'content' parameters, leaving them entirely undocumented. The agent must guess their meaning, which is especially problematic given 'content' is not self-explanatory.

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 uses a specific verb 'Record' and identifies the resource as a 'simulated commit push.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_issue, merge_pull_request, and run_command. However, it does not elaborate on what 'record' entails, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's exact function.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. The description simply states what it does without mentioning any context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'merge_pull_request' or 'run_command'.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools