Retrieve version control status and metadata for a project directory to identify branch, changes, and repository context. Defaults to the server project when no directory is set.
Get VCS (version control) info for the current project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| directory | No | Project directory to target. Optional; defaults to the server default project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't state that this is read-only, whether a git repository is required, what happens if the directory isn't under version control, or what 'info' comprises (branch, remote, dirty state). That is a real gap for a no-annotation tool.
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 clean sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and zero redundant wording. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why behavioral and usage gaps remain.
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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but doesn't say what 'VCS info' actually returns or whether a repo must exist. With no annotations to lean on, it leaves the agent guessing at the result shape.
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?
Only one optional parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains 'directory' fully. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the work.
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 and resource: 'Get VCS (version control) info for the current project.' An agent can distinguish this from siblings like opencode_session_diff or opencode_file_status, though the description never explicitly differentiates itself from them.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives named. The agent infers usage from the name alone, which is especially risky given siblings such as opencode_session_diff and opencode_review_changes that touch version-control-adjacent data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.