Stage and commit changes in a repository checkout, with options to target specific files or all changes.
Stage and commit changes in a repo checkout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | No | Repo checkout to target: absolute path, or a repo name under VBS_WORKSPACE_DIR, or omit to use VBCS_REPO_PATH default. Use list_repos to see what's available on this instance. | |
| files | No | Specific repo-relative files to stage; omit to stage all changes | |
| message | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds the useful fact that it both stages and commits in one step, but says nothing about author identity requirements, amend/force behavior, branch targeting, or whether the commit stays local until git_push.
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 eight-word sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. Every word carries meaning and nothing is padded.
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?
For a non-destructive write with annotations already covering the safety profile and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. The remaining gaps are the relationship to git_push and whether the commit is local-only, which an agent invoking this tool would reasonably want to know.
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 coverage is 67%: repo and files are well documented in the schema (including the important 'omit files to stage all changes' default), while message is undocumented but self-evident as the commit message. The description contributes no parameter detail at all, so the schema is doing all the work and a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 the specific verb pair (stage and commit) and the resource (changes in a repo checkout), which is more precise than a bare 'commit' because it discloses that staging is included. It is distinguishable from git_push/git_status/git_pull by action, but it never names or contrasts those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over git_push (whether committing alone publishes anything) or git_status (previewing changes before committing). The implicit 'stage and commit in one call' behavior is the only usage cue, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.