gread
Server Details
An MCP server that gives your AI access to the source code and docs of all public github repos
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- NitroRCr/gread
- GitHub Stars
- 32
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.3/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: navigating directory trees, reading code, searching code, searching repos, and viewing repo info. Only minor overlap exists between list_tree and view_repo's directory structure display, but their descriptions emphasize different use cases (customizable depth vs. overview).
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., list_tree, read_code, search_code). There are no deviations or mixed conventions, making the naming predictable and clear.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for code exploration and repository searching. The count is neither too few (covers core operations) nor too many (avoids bloat), matching the apparent purpose perfectly.
The tool set covers essential read operations: listing structure, reading code, searching code, searching repos, and viewing repo info. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no branch or commit access), but these are not core to a read-only code exploration server.
Available Tools
5 toolslist_treeCInspect
List the directory tree of a specific path in a repository with customizable depth and traversal limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Full name of the repository (owner/name) | |
| maxDepth | No | Maximum depth into the directory structure to list. | |
| maxPerDir | No | Maximum number of items to display per directory level. | |
| targetDir | No | Target directory path to inspect. Leaves empty to search from root. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'customizable depth and traversal limits' but does not disclose return format, error behavior, or whether it is read-only (implied but not stated).
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?
Single, focused sentence with no redundant information. Efficiently communicates the core purpose.
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?
Despite good parameter coverage, the description omits critical context: no mention of output format, failure modes (e.g., invalid path), or behavior of default parameters. With no annotations or output schema, this is insufficient for an agent to use reliably.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds 'customizable depth and traversal limits' which loosely maps to maxDepth and maxPerDir but does not enhance understanding beyond schema.
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?
The description clearly states the action (list directory tree) and resource (specific path in repository), distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_code, search_code, or view_repo.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to use list_tree vs read_code). The description implies it's for exploring directory structure but lacks contextual triggers or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
read_codeCInspect
Retrieve the raw source code of specified files from within a known repository.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Full name of the repository (owner/name) | |
| paths | Yes | An array of precise file paths within the repository |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation; it does not mention potential errors (e.g., file not found), permissions, rate limits, or any side effects. For a read-only operation, this is minimal but acceptable.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key information. However, it could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness, e.g., by hinting at the format of paths.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is moderately complete but lacks details about the return format (e.g., whether it returns raw text, encoding, or error messages). It does not explain behavior when multiple paths are provided or if a file is missing.
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?
Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, so baseline score is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the action ('retrieve raw source code') and the target resource ('specified files from within a known repository'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_tree' (which lists directory structure) and 'search_code' (which searches for patterns), though it does not explicitly contrast 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to prefer 'read_code' over 'view_repo'). No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned, such as the requirement that the repository be pre-loaded or that paths must be precise.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_codeAInspect
Perform a fast git grep inside the repository, allowing regex matching by default or substring search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Full name of the repository (owner/name) | |
| path | No | Directory or file path to limit the search scope | |
| query | Yes | Search pattern or query to pass to git grep | |
| ignoreCase | No | Ignore case distinctions in both the PATTERN and the input files (-i) | |
| contextLines | No | Print num lines of output context (-C) | |
| fixedStrings | No | Use fixed strings for patterns (don’t interpret pattern as a regex) (-F) | |
| extendedRegexp | No | Use extended regular expressions (-E) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description mentions 'fast' performance but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or error behavior (e.g., repo not found). Basic transparency but insufficient for a search 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?
Single sentence, no fluff. Could be slightly more structured, but efficient for the purpose.
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?
Adequate for a search tool with high schema coverage, but lacks details on output format or when to use specific options like fixedStrings vs extendedRegexp.
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 has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters. Description adds little beyond schema (e.g., defaults for regex). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'search' and resource 'code inside repository', with default regex matching. Differentiates from siblings like list_tree (file listing), read_code (read file), search_repos (repo search), and view_repo (repo info).
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 explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies code content search, but no exclusions or comparisons to search_repos or other siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_reposBInspect
Search for GitHub repositories by name, description, or topic keywords using the GitHub Search API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Keyword to search in repository names, descriptions, or topics |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It mentions using the GitHub Search API but does not disclose rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. This is insufficient for a search 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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.
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?
The description lacks details on output format, pagination, or result structure. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete but adequate for a straightforward search function.
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 100% with a clear description for 'q'. The description adds no new information beyond what the schema already states, so it does not enhance parameter understanding significantly.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'GitHub repositories', and the search scope (name, description, or topic keywords). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like search_code, which focuses on code search.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_code or list_tree. The description does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
view_repoAInspect
View repository basic information and its directory structure. Includes corresponding documentation repo if available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Full name of the repository (owner/name) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that documentation repo is included if available, which is helpful. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits like rate limits, auth, or side effects. For a simple read tool, this is minimally adequate.
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?
The description is two sentences long, front-loading the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary information.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequately complete. It covers what the tool does and an extra feature (documentation repo). A higher score would require more behavioral details or usage context.
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?
The input schema has one parameter 'name' with a description, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the verb (view), the resource (repository basic information and directory structure), and adds a useful detail about including documentation repo. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tree, read_code, search_code, search_repos.
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?
The description implies usage for getting an overview of a repository, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!