Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GitPilot MCP

GitPilot MCP

by Divyanshu-hash
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_repo_context

Retrieve relevant code chunks from an indexed repository by specifying a search query and repository path.

Instructions

Search the indexed repository for relevant code chunks.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "repo_path": "<repo_path>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "get_repo_context"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repo_pathYesAbsolute path to the repository
queryYesSearch query (e.g., "LSTM implementation")
kNoNumber of results to return (default: 6)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the burden is on the description to disclose behavioral traits, but it only states a generic search action. It fails to mention that the tool is read-only, whether it requires any permissions, or what happens if the repository is not indexed.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence, but it lacks structuring that would improve scannability, such as separating purpose from parameters. It is efficient yet minimal.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description omits important context like prerequisites (indexed repository), return format (even though output schema exists), and limitations. For a search tool, more details on query capabilities and result scoping would be expected.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already documents all parameters adequately.

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 clearly states the tool searches an indexed repository for relevant code chunks, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like index_repo and list_indexed_repositories.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when the repository needs indexing first or when to use reindex_repository. The description implies the repository must be indexed but does not state this explicitly.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools