Skip to main content
Glama
IEZhu

Agents-Core

by IEZhu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Describe the repository

describe_repo
Read-only

Retrieve a read-only repository summary preview or context bundle, and flag when a summary refresh is needed before a separate write.

Instructions

Read-only repository description; never samples or writes project files.

Returns a cached summary preview or a deterministic context bundle and
needs_summary for the calling model. Persistence is a separate explicit
write_repo_summary call, which refuses the running installation/source root.
For those protected roots the instruction directs the caller to keep the
overview in its answer or use a separate worktree instead of writing here.

Returns JSON whose fields depend on status:
  up-to-date: {status, path, hash, word_count, in_word_budget, summary_preview}
  needs_summary (refresh required; nothing written):
    {status, workspace_id, repo_hash, repo_path, prompt, instruction}
  error: {status, error}; over stdio a workspace error adds pid, workspace_inputs
    and, from a server the Claude desktop app started, hint
Follow instruction before persisting. When a write is allowed, pass
workspace_id, repo_path and repo_hash unchanged to write_repo_summary.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repo_pathNoOptional directory within the caller workspace; defaults to the workspace.
workspaceNoAbsolute path of your working directory, the project this session works in. Pass it whenever you have one: one server can serve several sessions.
force_refreshNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv26.10.14+1807

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, the description discloses the key non-obvious traits: nothing is written on needs_summary, the refusal policy for protected installation/source roots, the error shape including pid/workspace_inputs/hint over stdio, and the fact that workspace_id/repo_path/repo_hash must be passed unchanged to the write tool. That is materially more than the annotations convey.

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?

It is front-loaded with the read-only guarantee and the write split, and the status-based return shapes are laid out in a scannable list. It is longer than necessary, however, and since an output schema already exists, enumerating individual return fields duplicates structured data.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given a moderate-complexity tool with 3 optional params, no required params, an output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the description covers the important behaviors: read vs write separation, protected-root refusal, and status-dependent outcomes. The only real gap is the undocumented force_refresh parameter.

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 67%: repo_path and workspace are documented in the schema, but force_refresh has no description anywhere and the tool description never explains it (it only alludes to refresh being required via status). The mention of workspace_id and repo_hash refers to a different tool's parameters, so it adds no meaning for this tool's inputs. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read-only repository description') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling write_repo_summary ('Persistence is a separate explicit write_repo_summary call'). It also clarifies the two possible outputs (cached summary preview vs deterministic context bundle), so an agent can tell what it gets back. It stops short of a crisp one-line statement of 'describe this repo's current summary state', but the purpose is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear routing guidance: read here, persist only via the separate write_repo_summary call, and for protected installation/source roots keep the overview in the answer or use a separate worktree. It also instructs the caller to follow the returned instruction before persisting. It doesn't spell out when describe_repo itself should be preferred over other context tools in the sibling set, but for the read/write split it is explicit.

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