Fetch public GitHub repository or PR structure without generating a full risk report.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum tree entries to return. | |
| branch | No | Optional branch/ref. | |
| repoUrl | Yes | GitHub repository or pull request URL. |
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, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only public fetch and clarifies that no risk report is generated, but it omits details about rate limits, truncation due to the 'limit' parameter, or error behavior for invalid/private URLs.
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 efficient sentence with no filler. The core action and the distinguishing negative clause are front-loaded, and every word 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, and the description does not explain what the returned 'structure' looks like, how truncation works with 'limit', or what happens on errors. The complete parameter schema helps, but the absence of return-value or edge-case information leaves the definition incomplete for an agent.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that the repository is 'public', which slightly qualifies repoUrl, but it does not enhance understanding of 'limit' or 'branch' beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions.
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 uses a specific verb, 'Fetch', and names the resource, 'public GitHub repository or PR structure', making the action clear. The clause 'without generating a full risk report' explicitly distinguishes it from sibling report-generation tools.
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 when only repository/PR structure is needed and explicitly says it does not generate a full risk report. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.
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 serves a clearly distinct purpose: explaining the workflow, fetching repository structure, generating a report, and retrieving/listings existing reports. The overlap between fetching structure and screening is explicitly disambiguated by the 'without generating a full risk report' phrasing.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: explain_, get_, get_, list_, screen_. The verbs clearly map to their actions, and the objects are specific and readable.
Five tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: generate, retrieve, list, inspect, and explain. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The core workflow of generating and retrieving risk reports is fully covered, with repository structure inspection as a useful supporting action. A delete/remove operation for locally stored reports is a minor missing feature but not a critical gap in the primary workflow.
