Replit MCP Server

list_repls

Retrieve and display the current user's Replit workspaces to manage projects and access coding environments.

Instructions

List repls owned by the current user

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_repls"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum number of repls to return (default: 20)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jan 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but omits critical details: it doesn't specify the return format (e.g., list of objects), pagination behavior (beyond the 'limit' parameter), authentication requirements, or potential rate limits. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'repl' is (though inferable from siblings), the return format, or error conditions. For a tool in a server with many siblings, more context would help the agent understand its role better.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'limit' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as default behavior or constraints. With high schema coverage, 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.

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('repls'), specifying the scope as 'owned by the current user'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_repl_by_url' or 'get_repl_details' by focusing on listing multiple repls, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list-like tools such as 'list_files' beyond the resource type.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_repl_by_url' for specific repls or 'search_files' for other resources. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage context implied at best.

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