GitHub Next.js Optimizer MCP Server

listar_archivos_react

List every React/Next.js file (.tsx, .jsx, .ts, .js) in a GitHub repository or directory, so you can audit and optimize the project structure.

Instructions

Lista todos los archivos React/Next.js (.tsx, .jsx, .ts, .js) en un repositorio

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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "listar_archivos_react"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	No	Ruta específica a listar (opcional)
`repo`	Yes	Nombre del repositorio
`owner`	Yes	Propietario del repositorio

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose whether this requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, recursive vs non-recursive traversal, or how files are filtered. For a repository listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence stating verb, resource, and file-type constraints with zero waste. Well-structured and appropriately sized for the tool's scope.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the core purpose but lacks behavioral context that matters for a repository listing tool with no annotations and no output schema. An agent knows what it lists but not how the operation behaves (recursion, auth, pagination) or what the return structure looks like. Minimum viable but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (owner, repo, path). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (listar) and resource (archivos React/Next.js) with extension filters, clearly distinguishing it from analizar_repositorio and analizar_archivo which analyze rather than list. Sibling differentiation is implied by the 'list' vs 'analyze' verbs but not explicitly stated. Clear enough for an agent to select correctly.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus analizar_repositorio or analizar_archivo. The listing scope suggests it's a discovery step before analysis, but this is left to inference. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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

Deploy Server