jules_list_sourcesList GitHub repositories that are accessible as sources, with pagination support for exploring available options. Use this to select a repository for remote coding tasks.
List available sources (GitHub repositories)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageSize | No | Maximum number of sources to return | |
| pageToken | No | Page token for pagination |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the context that 'sources' means GitHub repositories, but it does not disclose behavioral detail such as pagination behavior or the implications of openWorldHint=true (e.g., whether external repositories are included).
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?
A single five-word sentence with zero filler and the verb front-loaded. It is efficiently structured, though the brevity leaves some information (like usage guidance) unaddressed.
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?
Adequate for a simple read-only list tool with no required params and a rich annotation set, but there are clear gaps: no indication of what the response looks like, no pagination usage hints, and no guidance distinguishing it from jules_get_source. The parenthetical defining 'sources' is the only extra contextual value.
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 100%, with both pageSize and pageToken already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-related meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List available sources') with a clarifying parenthetical that sources are GitHub repositories. It is clear and distinct from sibling tools like jules_list_sessions and jules_list_activities by resource type, though it doesn't explicitly name or contrast any sibling.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Notably, jules_get_source exists as a sibling, but the description never explains the relationship between listing sources and fetching a single source, nor any context for when listing is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.