OCD - Organized Context Datastore (MCP)

ocd_commit

Commit git changes manually by specifying a message and optional paths; configuration is discovered from the working directory.

Instructions

[OCD] 変更をコミット (git: 'manual' モード用)（cwd から設定を探索）

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": {
      "cwd": "<cwd>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "ocd_commit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cwd`	Yes	作業ディレクトリ（設定探索の起点）
`paths`	No	対象パス (省略時は全変更)
`message`	Yes	コミットメッセージ

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states 'commit changes' and 'search settings from cwd' but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it pushes, stages, or rewrites history), nor does it explain what 'manual mode' entails or any required permissions. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and context. It contains no redundant words or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 is reasonably simple (commit with 3 params), and the description conveys the core intent. However, it omits important contextual details such as what 'manual' mode means, the effects of committing (e.g., does it also push?), and how it relates to the sibling context tools. It is minimally viable but not fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema; the phrase 'cwd から設定を探索' merely restates the cwd parameter's existing description. No extra insight on 'paths' or 'message' is provided.

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's purpose: '変更をコミット' (commit changes). It specifies the resource (git) and mode ('manual' モード用), and the scope (cwd-based settings search). It distinguishes from sibling context tools by using the verb '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 phrase '(git: 'manual' モード用)' provides clear context on when to use the tool: in manual git mode. It implies this is the explicit commit action as opposed to automatic modes. However, it does not name alternatives or provide exclusions beyond this implied context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server