Manually sync code by creating a commit, pushing to the remote repository, and tagging when required.
Manual sync: commit + push + tag if needed.
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_sync"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states it commits and pushes, which implies remote mutations, but does not explain nuances like how the commit message is determined, what repository state is required, or whether changes are staged automatically. The lack of detail on side effects 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action. It avoids filler but is arguably too terse; a bit more context about the sync behavior would improve clarity without becoming verbose.
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?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameters, the description is the sole source of context. Yet it omits critical operational details such as commit message handling, staging behavior, branch/submodule assumptions, and any prerequisites. This makes the tool's practical usage under-specified for an agent.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, as indicated by the empty input schema. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, the description need not add parameter details. It gains no knowledge from parameters, so the description's lack of parameter info is acceptable.
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 clearly states the tool performs a manual sync consisting of commit, push, and optional tagging. This distinguishes it from siblings like git_commit, git_push, and git_tag_create by explicitly bundling those operations. However, the phrase 'if needed' introduces slight ambiguity about when tagging occurs.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus executing git_commit, git_push, and git_tag_create individually. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the terse phrase 'Manual sync'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.