git_statusInspect a workspace's Git working tree to list staged, modified, and untracked files before committing or reviewing changes.
Return git working tree status for the workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | . | |
| max_entries | No | ||
| include_untracked | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| branch | No | ||
| entries | No | ||
| is_repo | No | ||
| warnings | No | ||
| truncated | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'working tree status' scoping and nothing about pagination via max_entries or how untracked files appear, so it contributes modestly beyond structured data.
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 concise sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is wasted.
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 format needn't be explained, and annotations carry the safety semantics. The remaining gap is behavioral detail on parameters (truncation limits, untracked-file inclusion) and lack of routing guidance, leaving the definition only just adequate for a 3-param tool.
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% and the description mentions none of the three parameters (path, max_entries, include_untracked). The parameter names and defaults in the JSON schema hint at meaning, but the description does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap, notably the truncation behavior implied by max_entries.
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 ('Return') and resource ('git working tree status') scoped to the workspace. It is readily distinguishable from siblings like git_diff, git_log and git_show, though it does not name or contrast them explicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus git_diff, git_log, or git_show, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the path must be a git repo). Usage is only implied by the name and subject matter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.