ModelRouter MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

analyze_repository

Analyze a repository's metadata including file counts, languages, frameworks, and diff statistics without reading source file contents.

Instructions

Analyze repository metadata (file counts, languages, frameworks, diff stats). No source file contents are read.

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": {
      "repoPath": "<repoPath>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_repository"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repoPath`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that source file contents are not read, addressing a key safety concern. However, it does not confirm non-destructiveness or mention other behavioral traits like data retention or performance impact.

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?

Two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the negative constraint is provided in the second sentence. Every word adds value.

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?

For a tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and a key behavioral constraint. The list of outputs (file counts, languages, frameworks, diff stats) gives a reasonable expectation, though a brief note on the output structure would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not elaborate on the 'repoPath' parameter (e.g., format, accepted values like URL or local path). The first sentence implies the parameter is a repository path, but lacks sufficient detail for confident use.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Analyze repository metadata') and lists specific outputs (file counts, languages, frameworks, diff stats). It also explicitly states what is not done ('No source file contents are read'), distinguishing it from potential sibling tools that might read file contents.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for obtaining repository metadata without reading source files, but does not explicitly state when to use or provide alternatives. The sibling tools like 'analyze_task' suggest different scopes, but no direct comparison is made.

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

Deploy Server