Retrieve the repositories included in the published code graph, with the commit each was indexed at. Supports pagination via cursor and limit for large sets.
The repositories the published graph covers, with the commit each was indexed at.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safe read-only behavior, so the description does not need to restate that. It does add useful context about the output's scope—repositories covered by the published graph and their indexed commits. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, ordering, or whether results are stable snapshots, which would be valuable for a cursor-based list.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core subject and includes only the essential distinguishing detail—the associated commit—without redundant phrasing.
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?
While the tool is simple and read-only, the description omits parameter semantics, pagination behavior, and any connection to the broader published-graph state. There is no output schema to compensate, so an agent lacks enough detail to confidently construct a correct paginated call.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the parameters limit and cursor have no schema-level documentation. The description adds nothing about their meaning or interaction, leaving the agent to guess that cursor is for pagination. This is a significant gap in a tool whose only two parameters are entirely undocumented.
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?
The description names the exact resource—repositories covered by the published graph—and adds the meaningful detail that each entry includes the commit it was indexed at. The tool name supplies the verb 'list,' so the overall purpose is clear. It differentiates from sibling tools like find_symbol or trace_dependencies by its repository-level scope, even though it does not explicitly compare itself to them.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, how pagination works, or what context would make it the right choice. The description only says what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer when to call it. This is a clear gap given the tool has siblings and two pagination parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.