Lists repositories inside a Harbor project, with optional result limit and target filtering, so you can inspect available container images and artifacts.
[READ] List repositories inside a Harbor project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| target | No | ||
| project | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read, so the '[READ]' tag in the description adds nothing new. Beyond that, the description is silent on pagination behavior despite a 'limit' parameter, on what 'target' means, and on what the response contains.
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?
A single short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the specification gaps rather than a virtue of tight writing.
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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description is too thin: it never explains 'target' or 'limit', says nothing about result shape or pagination, and offers no routing guidance among the many sibling repository-related tools.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not: 'project' is only loosely implied by 'inside a Harbor project', while 'limit' and the ambiguous 'target' are entirely unexplained. An agent is left guessing at the meaning and format of two of three parameters.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List repositories') plus a scope ('inside a Harbor project'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like harbor_artifacts or harbor_tags. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tools for nested resources, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus harbor_artifacts, harbor_tags, or harbor_project. The only hint is the word 'List' and the parenthetical '[READ]', which implies a read operation but says nothing about exclusions, prerequisites, or pagination workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.