Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ryns-code-mcp

ryns-code-mcp

by rayenking
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

git status

git_status

Retrieve the current Git working tree status and active branch for a specified directory, so you can inspect changes and repository state before running further commands.

Instructions

Show git status and branch.

Tool call template

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_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNo.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the entire behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say the operation is read-only, whether untracked/staged files are included, or what happens when cwd is not a git repo. Only the implicit "show" wording hints that nothing is mutated.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The definition is a single short clause with the verb front-loaded and zero padding, which is good. However, its brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy, and the trailing "and branch" is a fragment that adds ambiguity instead of information.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a simple one-parameter tool this could be adequate, but with no annotations, no parameter documentation, and no output schema, an agent still cannot predict the return shape or error behavior. It needs at least read-only confirmation and cwd semantics.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The single cwd parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it, so its meaning (working directory in which git status runs, defaulting to the server's '.') and path semantics are left entirely to inference. One undocumented parameter prevents the no-param baseline of 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Show git status and branch" names a verb (show) and a resource (git status + branch info), so the general purpose is guessable. But it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools git_branch, git_log, and git_diff, and the phrase "and branch" is ambiguous about whether branch data is included in the status output or a separate concern.

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 statement of when to use this versus git_diff, git_log, or git_branch, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the cwd must be inside a git repository). The agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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