Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Local Repo Automation MCP

Local Repo Automation MCP

by ERSONUMECH
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_repositories

Scan an allowed directory to locate Git repositories. Specify a root path and optional depth to discover repos for automation tasks.

Instructions

Find Git repositories below an allowed directory.

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": {
      "root": "<root>"
    },
    "name": "list_repositories"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rootYesAllowed parent directory to scan
maxDepthNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that this is a read-only scan, how directory traversal works, or what happens with maxDepth; only the schema hints at depth limits. The 'allowed directory' constraint is mentioned but not explained.

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 concise single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and resource. It is efficient, though slightly under-specified for full standalone clarity.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the tool lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. It is minimally viable but incomplete for an agent needing to understand permissions, depth semantics, or when to prefer this tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 50%: root is documented in the schema, but maxDepth has no description in either the schema or the tool description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and fails to compensate for the undocumented maxDepth.

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?

The description clearly identifies the action ('Find') and resource ('Git repositories'), with a scope constraint of 'below an allowed directory'. It is naturally distinct from mutation-oriented siblings like commit_repository or deploy_repository, though it does not explicitly name a specific alternative.

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 is given about when this tool should be used versus siblings or what prerequisites apply. The phrase 'allowed directory' hints at a permission boundary but does not explain when to invoke listing versus other repository operations.

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