Repology

Repositories

repositories

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all package repositories indexed by Repology (distros, BSDs, language ecosystems, etc.) with their names, family, and active/total package counts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	Yes	Number of items returned.
`items`	Yes	Array of repositories with stats and status

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedMay 27, 2026

addedInput schema / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  {}
+]
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "description": "Number of items returned.",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "items": {
+      "description": "Array of repositories with stats and status",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "name": {
+            "description": "Repository name",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "num_maintainers": {
+            "description": "Number of maintainers in repository",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "num_packages": {
+            "description": "Number of packages in repository",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "num_problems": {
+            "description": "Number of problems in repository",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "state": {
+            "description": "Repository status",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "items",
+    "count"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide rich safety signals (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description only needs to add behavioral nuances. It discloses that the list covers all repositories indexed by Repology and enumerates the returned fields, which adds context beyond annotations, though it omits pagination or limit details.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single sentence that places the main verb and object first, then fills in the result details. There is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary caveats.

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 parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description sufficiently explains the tool's scope and returned information. It would be slightly more complete if it mentioned that the list can be large or noted sorting/pagination, but these are not essential given the output schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the description has no parameter semantics to add. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific action verb ('List') and a clearly defined resource ('all package repositories indexed by Repology') plus the key result fields (names, family, package counts). This clearly distinguishes it from any sibling tool that deals with entities or alerts, as no other sibling lists repositories.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. However, the 'List all...' phrasing strongly implies the use case of retrieving the global repository catalog, and no sibling appears to offer a similar repository-listing function.

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

All Repology tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.