git-mcp-server

by saitolume

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0-beta.2
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct Git operation (branch creation, staging, fetch, commit, merge, push, result retrieval) with no overlap. The merge-related tools (merge, continue, abort) are clearly differentiated by their stage in the merge lifecycle.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent 'git_' prefix + snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., git_switch_create, git_restore_worktree, git_merge_continue). The naming is predictable and easy to parse.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, the set is well-scoped for a focused Git workflow (branch, stage, commit, fetch, merge, push). It avoids bloat while covering essential operations, and each tool serves a clear purpose.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers core development operations (add, commit, push, fetch, merge, branch creation) but lacks common operations like log, diff, or stash. While the set is coherent for a linear workflow, minor gaps reduce coverage.
Average 4.4/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 3.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 28 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by listing what the tool excludes and defaults, but does not fully disclose side effects beyond the schema. Given openWorldHint=true, more detail on potential side effects (e.g., updating remote tracking branches) would improve transparency. No contradiction with annotations found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, using three clear bullet-like lines. It front-loads the operation purpose and efficiently communicates defaults and exclusions without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity, the description covers the operation, return fields, defaults, and exclusions. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, it could mention prerequisites (e.g., remote configured) and error conditions for fuller completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description provides general operation context but does not add specific parameter-level explanations beyond what the schema already offers.
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 clearly states 'Fetch origin heads into the fixed origin-tracking namespace', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like git_push and git_merge by focusing on fetching without merging or pushing, though it could be more explicit about when to use it over alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by providing defaults and exclusions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. It gives context (e.g., no tag updates, no custom refspec) that helps an agent understand constraints, but lacks clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint: true, and the description confirms the destructive nature by stating it aborts a merge and restores state. It adds specific context about requiring an 'owned' merge session and durable cleanup, which goes beyond the annotation hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long and conveys key information efficiently. It is front-loaded with the main action, though the phrasing 'exact owned merge_session_id' is somewhat dense. No superfluous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the five required parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior, including return fields (request_id, repository_id, restored head). It provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 5 parameters have schema descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, only reiterating that inputs are required. This meets the baseline for schema-rich tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Abort' and the resource 'merge_session_id', specifying that it restores the original merge state. This distinguishes it from siblings like git_merge_continue and git_merge, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly excludes 'external merge sessions, generic reset, unrelated paths, and retry', providing some guidance on when not to use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like git_merge_continue or git_restore_worktree, leaving room for clearer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false. The description adds details about defaults (all inputs required, native hooks run, signing disabled) and return values, providing context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences: action, returns, defaults, exclusions. No wasted words, front-loaded core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 required params, destructive nature, and presence of output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and exclusions adequately. Could add more on safety guarantees but sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning ('owned', 'after all unresolved paths are staged') but mostly reiterates schema info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Continue' and the resource 'owned merge_session_id' with the condition 'after all conflicts are resolved'. It distinguishes from siblings like git_merge and git_merge_abort.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The 'Excludes' line explicitly lists scenarios where the tool should not be used (external sessions, unresolved conflicts). It implies usage after conflict resolution, though alternatives are not named directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds details: 'no repository input required', 'lookup only', and lists exclusions, providing behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences: purpose+returns, defaults, exclusions. Front-loaded with key action. No unnecessary words. Efficient structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Description specifies what is returned, defaults, and exclusions. Adequate for a simple read-only tool, though could mention when to use in relation to sibling tools (implied but not explicit).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and schema description of request_id is detailed. Description adds 'Read the result stored for request_id' but essentially restates schema's purpose. No new semantic meaning beyond what schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Read the result stored for request_id' - specific verb 'Read' and resource 'result'. Distinguishes from sibling git mutation tools which perform actions; this only reads stored results.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
States 'Defaults: lookup only; no repository input required' and lists exclusions like 'Git execution, repository mutation'. Provides context for when to use (retrieve result) and when not to (perform git operations), though could be more explicit about use case for checking previous mutations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations, the description discloses exclusions (non-fast-forward, force, tags, delete, retry), defaults (fixed origin/branch, internal lease), and behavior for null expectations, providing substantial context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three succinct sentences covering operation, returns, and constraints. However, technical jargon ('CAS', 'ancestry proof') may reduce clarity for some agents.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers operation, return values, and constraints. Missing explanation of 'internal exact lease' but paired with high schema coverage and output schema, it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with good descriptions; the description adds only minor context (fixed origin/branch) but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Push' and the resource 'current branch HEAD to the same branch on origin', distinguishing it from sibling tools like git_fetch or git_commit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly defines when to use this tool (for pushing), but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, though sibling context helps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (destructiveHint: true), the description details that conflicts create an owned session, returns nullable merge_session_id, and excludes external sessions, providing full behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first states operation and returns, second covers defaults and exclusions. No redundancy, front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given output schema exists, description covers necessary behavioral aspects and return fields. All required params are in schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds little beyond schema (e.g., defaults mention fast-forward/merge commit) but does not elaborate parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the action (merge), the resource (remote_ref and object bound to fetch_id), and distinguishes from siblings by excluding rebase, arbitrary local refs, and external merge sessions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides defaults and conflict behavior but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like git_merge_continue or git_push, leaving room for ambiguity in when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With all annotations set to false, the description adds significant behavioral context: returns, default behavior (string vs null for expected_branch), and conditions for rejection (mismatch, dirty state). It does not claim idempotency, consistent with annotations. The description reveals the mutation's preconditions and side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single dense paragraph with clear sections (Operation, Returns, Defaults, Excludes). Every sentence carries essential information, with no repetition or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 required params, output schema present), the description covers operation, return values, default behavior, and failure conditions. The output schema handles return details, so the description is complete for agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the default behavior for expected_branch ('string requires attached branch, null requires detached HEAD') and clarifying the branch parameter's purpose beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create and switch') and resource ('one new branch') with precise conditions ('from the exact expected_branch and exact expected HEAD'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying that it only creates a new branch from a specific state, excluding checkout, merge, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly lists what is excluded (existing branch checkout, force/reset, mismatch, dirty state, remote access), providing clear when-not-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like git_commit or git_merge, though the exclusions implicitly differentiate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond annotations by detailing return values, preconditions (expected_branch/expected_head), and constraints on paths. No contradiction with annotations; readOnlyHint=false is consistent with a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single dense paragraph with clear labeled sections (Operation, Returns, Defaults, Excludes). Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main aspects: operation, modes, preconditions, and exclusions. Minor missing details like definition of 'owned merge session' could be inferred.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds value by explaining the interaction between stage_id and merge_session_id, and the default behavior. This nuance is not present in the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Stage' and the resource 'literal paths' in two specific modes (normal and merge session). It also explicitly lists exclusions, distinguishing this tool from siblings like git_commit or git_merge.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the default mode when IDs are omitted and the mutual exclusivity of stage_id and merge_session_id. It also lists excluded path types. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description goes beyond by detailing what is restored (tracked worktree paths), what is validated (snapshot guard), what is excluded (index mutation, untracked paths, deletion, etc.), and what is returned. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using only three short sentences structured as Operation, Returns, Defaults, and Excludes. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 required parameters, destructive, snapshot guard requirement), the description covers purpose, return fields, defaults, and exclusions. With an output schema available, it is nearly complete, though it could briefly mention typical usage scenarios (e.g., after a conflict resolution) for full clarity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 6 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating 'all inputs are required' and 'the current index is the only content source,' providing operational context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool restores 'declared tracked worktree paths from the current index' after validating a snapshot guard, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on worktree restoration, unlike git_add, git_commit, or git_merge.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: the operation requires a validated snapshot guard and only works on tracked paths from the index. It lists exclusions (index mutation, untracked paths, etc.) to help decide when not to use, but does not explicitly name alternatives or when to prefer this over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and lack idempotency (idempotentHint=false). The description adds crucial detail: native hooks run, rejected hooks return HOOK_FAILED, the commit is durable via request_id, and the return fields include hook_changed_paths and signing policy. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured paragraph with front-loaded core purpose ('Commit'), followed by operation details, return info, defaults, and exclusions. Every sentence is informative without any wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given six required parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, behavioral nuances (hook interaction, return values), exclusions, and defaults. The output schema exists to define return types, so the description need not repeat them. It fully addresses the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds extra context for each parameter, such as 'message passed only on standard input', 'stage_id is owned normal-stage session', and 'request_id makes mutation durable and idempotent'. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool commits the exact index of a given stage_id with native hooks and signing disabled. It uses a specific verb ('Commit') and resource ('index owned by one stage_id'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like git_add (staging) and git_push (pushing).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly lists defaults (all inputs required, native hooks run, signing disabled) and exclusions (no raw hook output, amend, implicit staging, push, hook bypass). This helps the agent understand when to use this tool versus alternatives like git_push.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![git-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/saitolume/git-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/saitolume/git-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![git-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/saitolume/git-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/saitolume/git-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/saitolume/git-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server