git_diffShows the current working-tree diff so you can inspect uncommitted changes before committing or reviewing modifications.
Show working-tree diff.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "git_diff"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | . |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does 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. 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but it does not state whether it invokes a pager, includes untracked files, or has any side effects or 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for what it says, though its brevity contributes to gaps assessed under other dimensions.
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, no output schema, and an undocumented cwd parameter, the definition is thin. It does not clarify whether the diff covers staged, unstaged, or untracked changes, nor how cwd affects repository resolution.
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 0% and the sole parameter, cwd, is not mentioned in the description. It does not explain that cwd selects the repository directory or what the default '.' means, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 uses a specific verb, 'Show', and a specific resource, 'working-tree diff', so the core purpose is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as git_status or git_log, but the resource name is specific enough to identify the operation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus git_status, git_log, or other diff variants, and no mention of staged versus unstaged changes. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.