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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / name / patternAdded value: +"^[a-zA-Z0-9_.-]+\\/[a-zA-Z0-9_.-]+$"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It implicitly suggests a read operation but does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor mention permissions, rate limits, or error handling. Adequate but minimal.
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 with no wasted words. Every word contributes to 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?
For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on file-not-found behavior, encoding, or size limits. Slightly incomplete.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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), resource (raw source code), and context (known repository). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_code which searches code, and list_tree which lists directory structure.
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 like search_code or list_tree. The description does not mention when not to use it or provide context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: listing directory trees, reading source code, searching code, searching repositories, and viewing repository info. No overlaps.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_tree, read_code, search_code, search_repos, view_repo), making them predictable.
With 5 tools, the server is appropriately scoped for code reading and searching tasks, neither too sparse nor overloaded.
Covers key read operations like directory listing, code retrieval, code search, repo search, and repo info. Minor gaps: no file metadata or commit history, but core functionality is solid.