get_task_repo_filesReads the contents of files from the task's GitHub repo (from the repo_url returned by get_task_result or create_task) — so you can check the specialist's work without opening the link manually. Root-directory files only (the repo is flat); files > 900KB are returned as just a download_url with no content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses read-only file access, root-directory-only scope (flat repo), and the 900KB threshold where content is replaced by a download_url. It doesn't describe the exact normal-file return shape, but the key limitations are explicit.
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?
Two sentences with no filler: the core action and source are front-loaded, and the constraints are packed into a compact second sentence. Every clause adds decision-relevant 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?
For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the source of repo_url, the flat/root-only structure, and the large-file truncation rule. It leaves minor gaps about the exact normal-file return format, but an agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 schema documents only task_id as a required string with no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It clarifies that task_id refers to the task whose GitHub repo is being read and that repo_url comes from get_task_result or create_task. It does not restate the parameter formally, but the mapping is unambiguous.
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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Reads the contents of files from the task's GitHub repo,' and ties it to the repo_url returned by get_task_result or create_task. This clearly differentiates it from sibling task-management tools such as cancel_task, get_task_status, and search_specialists.
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?
It gives concrete usage context: use this tool to check a specialist's work without manually opening the link, and it identifies the prerequisite of obtaining repo_url via get_task_result or create_task. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but no sibling performs file reads, so the context is sufficient.
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.
The tools are mostly distinct: search_specialists, create_task, cancel_task, and get_task_repo_files each have clear, separate roles. However, get_task_result and get_task_status overlap somewhat since both report task status, though get_task_result additionally provides the repo link.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_task, cancel_task, get_task_status, get_task_result, get_task_repo_files, and search_specialists. The one non-get verb, search_specialists, still fits the same predictable convention.
Six tools is well-scoped for the hiring-specialist workflow: searching, creating, canceling, monitoring, retrieving results, and inspecting repo files. Each tool serves a necessary step without unnecessary expansion.
The core lifecycle is covered: find a specialist, create a task, cancel if needed, check status, retrieve results, and inspect files. Minor gaps exist such as no explicit task-listing tool or ability to update task details, but these are not obvious dead ends for the stated purpose.