Retrieve file content from a repository at a specific branch or commit.
Get the content of a file from a repository at a specific branch or commit
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Project name | |
| repository | Yes | Repository name or ID | |
| path | Yes | File path (e.g., "/src/index.ts") | |
| branch | No | Branch name (e.g., "main") | |
| commitId | No | Specific commit SHA (overrides branch) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read operation but does not disclose the return format (raw vs base64), handling of large/binary files, error conditions, or pagination. This leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified for a tool with no annotation safety signals.
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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. No redundant words or filler; every word contributes to the meaning.
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 simple file retrieval tool, the description captures the essential purpose, but it lacks details on how branch and commitId interact (e.g., commitId overrides branch) and what the response contains. With no output schema and no annotations, additional context would improve completeness.
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 covers all 5 parameters with individual descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds the branch/commit context but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already states for parameters like path or repository.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'get' and identifies the resource as file content from a repository at a specific branch or commit. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_commit (which retrieves commit metadata) and search_code (which searches within code).
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?
The description implies usage when file content is needed at a version, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks comparisons or exclusions that would help an agent choose among siblings like compare_branches or get_commit_diff.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.