Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LocalForge

LocalForge

by tanskong
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

git_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve structured Git branch, HEAD, staged, dirty, and untracked state to assess a repository's working tree before commit or automation.

Instructions

Return structured branch, HEAD-related dirty, staged, and untracked Git state.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "git_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the returned state categories (branch, dirty, staged, untracked), but with an output schema present this adds limited behavioral value beyond structured fields.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that contains no filler. Every word earns its place by naming the verb, the output structure, and the key state components.

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?

Annotations fully cover safety and mutation behavior, and the output schema means return values need not be explained. However, the required path parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 only parameter, path, has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned at all in the description. An agent must infer that path means a repository or working-tree path; the description does nothing to compensate for the absent schema semantics.

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?

States a specific verb (Return) and resource (structured Git state) and enumerates the state categories: branch, HEAD-related dirty, staged, and untracked. This distinguishes it from siblings like git_diff, git_log, and git_show, which deal with diffs, history, and object inspection respectively.

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 naming the returned state categories, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as git_diff or shell. For a status-inspection tool among several Git siblings, this is adequate but under-guided.

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