repo_diligence$0.03 per call — Deep GitHub repo due-diligence: base snapshot + last 5 commits (author/date/message), contributor count, archived flag, security-policy presence, latest release cadence and open/closed issue ratio. Use to decide whether to depend on or contribute to a repo before trusting it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | owner/name, URL also accepted |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / qRemoved value: -{
- "description": "JSON or key=value input for the tool",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / repoAdded value: +{
+ "description": "owner/name, URL also accepted",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "repo"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the per-call cost ($0.03), the exact read scope, and the recency bound (last 5 commits), which is real behavioral context beyond the schema. It stops short of stating explicitly that the operation is read-only or what happens on an invalid/private repo.
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 zero waste: the cost is front-loaded and the field inventory follows immediately, then the decision context. Every clause earns its place.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values itself, and it does so thoroughly (snapshot, commits, contributors, archived, security policy, release cadence, issue ratio). Combined with the usage rationale, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.
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?
One parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('owner/name, URL also accepted'), so the schema already documents the single input. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Deep GitHub repo due-diligence') and enumerates the exact data returned: base snapshot, last 5 commits, contributor count, archived flag, security policy, release cadence, issue ratio. An agent can distinguish this from the sibling github_repo without opening a schema.
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?
Gives clear context for when to use it: to decide whether to depend on or contribute to a repo before trusting it. However, it does not name an alternative (e.g. github_repo or web_fetch) or state when not to use this paid tool, so the routing guidance is contextual but incomplete.
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.