Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
preact-mcp

preact-mcp

by JoviDeCroock
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_preact_readme

Retrieve the README content for a specified Preact repository to check installation, usage, and package guidance. Pass a supported repository name to get its official documentation.

Instructions

Get the README content from a specific Preact repository

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": {
      "repository": "<repository>"
    },
    "name": "get_preact_readme"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repositoryYesThe repository to get README from

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation is a read (implied by 'Get') and returns README content, but doesn't cover output format, size, rate limits, or any authentication requirements. Adequate for a simple read, but no extra behavioral context.

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?

One efficient sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words. Could be improved by adding sibling differentiation, but as is, it's concise.

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?

For a simple read tool with a single enum parameter and no output schema, the description should explain return value (e.g., raw text) and usage context relative to siblings. It's minimally complete but lacks differentiation from query_preact_docs.

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%, and the single parameter is a well-documented enum with a clear description. The tool description adds no information beyond the schema about parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: fetching README content from a Preact repository. It's clear what the tool does, but it doesn't differentiate from siblings like query_preact_docs which likely returns documentation content, creating potential ambiguity about when to use README fetch vs. doc query.

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 on when to use this tool versus query_preact_docs or list_preact_repositories. The description implies it fetches README for a single repository, but doesn't state when that's preferable to searching docs.

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