Open a local or Git repository for analysis and pin it to a specific branch, tag, or commit, creating an isolated clone so the original working tree stays untouched.
분석할 저장소를 열고 커밋을 고정한다. 분석 전용 clone 을 만들어 원본 작업 트리와 분리.
Args: source: 로컬 경로 또는 git URL ref: 고정할 브랜치·태그·커밋 (생략 시 HEAD) name: 프로젝트 이름 (생략 시 저장소 이름). 실제 id 는 -<커밋 앞 8자리>
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| source | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the important side effect: it creates an analysis-only clone isolated from the original working tree and pins a commit. It also explains the resulting id format, though it omits lifecycle details such as cleanup expectations and permissions.
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 front-loaded with the core action and followed by a compact Args list. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition or filler.
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?
There is no output schema, but the description explains the derived id format and the clone isolation behavior well enough for correct invocation. It could be more complete by mentioning cleanup via oss_repo_close, permissions, or error behavior, but the essential context is present.
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 description must compensate, and it documents all three parameters clearly: source accepts a local path or git URL, ref is a branch/tag/commit defaulting to HEAD, and name defaults to the repository name. It further explains that the actual id is derived from name plus the first 8 commit characters.
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: opening an analysis repository and pinning a commit. It also explains that an analysis-only clone is created, which distinguishes it from siblings like oss_repo_list or oss_repo_status. It does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied by '분석할 저장소를 열고' and the analysis-only clone, indicating this is an initial setup step before analysis. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus oss_repo_list, oss_repo_status, or oss_repo_close, nor does it state exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.