Skip to main content
Glama

RepoPilot

by app.repopilot
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Plan a task against repository evidence and a checked SHA

plan_repo_task
Read-only

CALL before editing an unfamiliar public repository, or to find where a bug or feature lives. Pass the issue or task text (up to 4000 characters; include the error and expected behaviour) and checked_sha when you know it. Returns files ranked for the task at that commit (provenance task_localizer), the owning layer, a bounded reading order, dependency consumers, test/verification obligations, analyzed-vs-checked SHA relation, evidence provenance, and a short-lived verification contract. To rank files, task text is sent to RepoPilot's model provider; it is never persisted or echoed. Rankings are suggestions: read the files before acting.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoNoPublic GitHub repository as owner/repo or a github.com URL.
taskYes
ownerNoRepository owner, when repo carries only the bare name. Optional: prefer the single owner/repo form in repo.
intentNo
packageNonpm package name, for example lodash or npm:@scope/pkg. To judge a specific VERSION rather than the package as a whole, use evaluate_dependency_change instead.
max_filesNo
path_hintsNoOptional repository-relative files or directories to prioritize.
checked_shaNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toolYes
agentYes
statusYes
schema_versionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / task / maxLength
      Previous value: -500New value: +4000
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / owner
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Repository owner, when repo carries only the bare name. Optional: prefer the single owner/repo form in repo.",
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / package / description
      Previous value: -"npm package name, for example lodash or npm:@scope/pkg."New value: +"npm package name, for example lodash or npm:@scope/pkg. To judge a specific VERSION rather than the package as a whole, use evaluate_dependency_change instead."
  4. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description still adds valuable non-obvious context: task text is sent to RepoPilot's model provider, is never persisted or echoed, and rankings are suggestions rather than authoritative actions. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: call-to-action, input guidance, output summary, privacy disclosure, and a caveat. It is front-loaded with the most important usage signal and contains no filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the main repo-based use case, output categories, and privacy behavior, and an output schema exists to carry return-value details. However, it ignores the package input branch of the oneOf schema, does not explain intent or max_files, and leaves the 'short-lived verification contract' vague. For a complex 8-parameter tool, this is a noticeable gap.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is about 50%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for task (max 4000 chars, include error and expected behaviour) and checked_sha (pass when known). But intent, max_files, path_hints, and the repo/package branch remain underdescribed, so compensation is only partial.

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 identifies the tool's action and resource: planning a task against repository evidence, finding where a bug or feature lives, and returning ranked files. It is specific and useful, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools such as analyze_repo or check_change_risk, so it misses the differentiator needed for a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives concrete when-to-use guidance: 'CALL before editing an unfamiliar public repository, or to find where a bug or feature lives.' It also tells the agent what to include in task text and when to pass checked_sha. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of fully explicit routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All RepoPilot toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources