Nife MCP Server

Inspect repository

inspect_repository

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a Git repository BEFORE deploying: is it reachable, public or private, does the branch exist, which framework is it and what build settings fit. Works for GitHub, GitLab and Bitbucket. For private repos pass pat_secret_name; the token is used server-side only and never returned.

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": {
      "repo_url": "<repo_url>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_repository"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`branch`	No	Branch or tag to check (default: the repo's default branch)
`ref_type`	No	'heads' = branches, 'tags' = tags	heads
`repo_url`	Yes	https://github.com/<owner>/<repo> (or gitlab.com / bitbucket.org)
`pat_secret_name`	No	NAME of a stored Git token secret, for PRIVATE repos (see list_git_secrets)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: multi-provider support (GitHub/GitLab/Bitbucket) and the security guarantee that the PAT is used server-side only and never returned — important context for a tool that touches credentials.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, leading with the action and its timing, then the provider scope, then the credential caveat. Nothing could be removed without losing routing or safety information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described, and the description already summarizes the checks performed. With 100% schema coverage and full annotation coverage, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds a little meaning by tying pat_secret_name to private repos and to the 'never returned' handling, but says nothing new about branch or ref_type beyond what the schema states.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Check a Git repository') and enumerates exactly what is returned: reachability, visibility, branch existence, framework, and build settings. The 'BEFORE deploying' framing lets an agent separate it from deploy_site and list_site_frameworks without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear timing/context ('BEFORE deploying') and a conditional instruction for private repos ('pass pat_secret_name'). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or say when not to use it, but the pre-deploy positioning is unambiguous enough to route correctly.

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

All Nife MCP Server tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?