Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sentarion-mcp

sentarion-mcp

by sammyboi81
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

worktree

Create, list, and remove isolated Git working directories so dispatched tasks run in a sandbox, never touching the live checkout.

Instructions

Git-worktree sandbox skill: run dispatched work in an isolated worktree so it never touches the live checkout. action=create|list|remove. create/remove are two-chamber-governed; list is read-only.

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": {
      "action": "<action>",
      "repo_path": "<repo_path>"
    },
    "name": "worktree"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baseNocreate: base ref (default HEAD)
pathNocreate: explicit worktree dir (optional)
forceNoremove: allow uncommitted changes
actionYes
branchNocreate: new branch name
repo_pathYespath to the git repo
delete_branchNoremove: also delete this branch
worktree_pathNoremove: worktree dir to remove

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses important traits: isolation from the live checkout, read-only list behavior, and that create/remove are governed. However, 'two-chamber-governed' is unexplained jargon, and details about side effects, branch deletion, or force behavior are absent.

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 compact and front-loads the key behavior (isolated worktree) before listing actions. The two sentences contain no filler. However, the phrase 'two-chamber-governed' is opaque and could be clearer without adding length.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives a good high-level summary and names the actions, but does not explain per-action parameters, return values, or the actual 'two-chamber-governed' mechanism. The rich schema compensates partly, but not fully.

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 description coverage is high at 88%, so the parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds only the action enum grouping, no additional meaning about base, branch, force, delete_branch, or worktree_path. The high coverage keeps this at baseline 3.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: it runs dispatched work in an isolated Git-worktree sandbox, and explicitly enumerates the three actions (create, list, remove). This is a specific verb+resource statement that distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools.

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 for when to use the tool—when you need to run work in isolation and avoid touching the live checkout. It also distinguishes read-only usage (list) from governed mutations (create/remove). It does not name alternative tools or explicit exclusions, but the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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