Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Git.Top

by io.github.haocn-ops
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_project

Read-only

Return structured Git.Top knowledge for a project or collection, including the compact agent summary, overview, alternatives, deployments, quality score, agent score, project_kind, and collection_metadata when applicable. Prefer search_projects first when the canonical owner/repo id is uncertain.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoNoGitHub repository name, or owner/repo when owner is omitted.
ownerNoGitHub owner; use with repo when project_id is omitted.
projectNoAlias for project_id; accepts a canonical owner/repo identifier or Git.Top product alias.
project_idNoCanonical owner/repo identifier or a Git.Top product alias such as claude-code or cursor. The repo field may also contain owner/repo.
require_d1NoFail closed unless the tool result is backed by D1 instead of seed fallback.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / project
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias for project_id; accepts a canonical owner/repo identifier or Git.Top product alias.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's job is to add return-shape context and it does so by listing the fields returned. It stops short of describing failure behavior (unknown project, seed fallback vs. D1) which the require_d1 flag implies exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, return content front-loaded, alternative tool mentioned last. The long field list is dense but every item is a distinct piece of output information, and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, enumerating the returned fields is the right compensation and it is present. What remains missing is error/not-found behavior and how seed fallback manifests, which matter for a lookup tool with a fail-closed flag.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself stating the project_id/repo/owner-or-repo alternatives and the require_d1 fail-closed rule. The description only adds the notion that a 'collection' can be referenced, which is marginal 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.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('structured Git.Top knowledge for a project or collection') and enumerates the payload (agent summary, overview, alternatives, deployments, quality score, agent score, project_kind, collection_metadata). The one gap is that it only routes against search_projects, leaving its relationship to compare_projects and recommend_project implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit ordering rule: run search_projects first when the canonical owner/repo id is uncertain. It does not say when not to use this tool (e.g. versus compare_projects for multi-project comparison), so usage guidance is clear but incomplete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Git.Top toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources