Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Git MCP Server

Git MCP Server

by yumeminami
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

test_platform_connection

Test whether the configured platform (GitHub, GitLab) is accessible and authenticated, validating connectivity for automation workflows.

Instructions

Test connection to a configured platform

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": {
      "platform": "<platform>"
    },
    "name": "test_platform_connection"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
platformYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.5

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the test is destructive, what it returns, or if it requires authentication. The description carries the full burden but adds no context beyond the basic action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (6 words, one sentence) but at the cost of omitting essential details. It earns a 3 for being minimal but not overly verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity of the tool (only one required parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description could still add value by explaining the parameter and expected behavior, but it does not.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%: the 'platform' parameter has no description in the schema, and the tool description does not explain what values are valid or how to specify it. This leaves the agent without necessary information.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Test connection to a configured platform.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the action is distinct from siblings like list_platforms or get_platform_config.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that list_platforms might be needed first to get valid platform names.

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