Browse a GitHub repository's file tree to explore project structure at any branch, tag, or commit. Specify a directory path to inspect its contents.
Browse the file tree of the connected GitHub repository.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Branch, tag, or commit SHA | |
| path | No | Directory path (empty for root) | |
| teamId | No | Team ID (auto from session if omitted) | |
| projectId | No | Project ID (auto from session if omitted) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only browsing operation but does not state whether the tree is recursive, what metadata is included, how the connected repository is determined, or what the response shape is.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose efficiently and does not waste the agent's attention.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves important context unstated, such as default ref behavior, tree depth, and the relationship to the connected repository. For a tool with four optional parameters and many siblings, this is not fully complete.
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%, so all four parameters already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no per-parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Browse the file tree of the connected GitHub repository.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_file_content by focusing on the tree rather than file contents, though it does not 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 about when to use this tool versus get_file_content, get_github_context, or other siblings. The description only says what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when it is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.