Creates a prompt for a Conventional Commit message using only staged Git changes, optionally with scope, type, and repository path.
Prepare a prompt for a Conventional Commit message from staged changes only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | ||
| repo_path | No | ||
| commit_type | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Input schema / properties / commit_type / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "enum": [
+ "feat",
+ "fix",
+ "docs",
+ "style",
+ "refactor",
+ "perf",
+ "build",
+ "ci",
+ "test",
+ "chore",
+ "revert"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two traits: it produces a 'prompt' (not the message itself) and reads staged changes only, but it says nothing about mutation, permissions, or whether repo_path affects git state.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The scope qualifier ('staged changes only') is placed where it matters, and nothing is padding.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, which helps. However, for a three-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage and no annotations, the description is too thin to fully orient the agent on the arguments it must supply.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters (scope, repo_path, commit_type). The description alludes to Conventional Commit conventions, which loosely maps to commit_type and scope, but it never explains any parameter's meaning or the repo_path argument, leaving the schema and description jointly silent.
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?
States a specific verb ('Prepare a prompt') and resource ('Conventional Commit message'), and adds the key scope qualifier 'from staged changes only'. The purpose is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling check_git_status or clarify that it produces a prompt rather than the commit itself in contrast to alternatives.
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?
The 'from staged changes only' clause implies the appropriate context (changes must be staged first), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as check_git_status. Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.