Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dsh-rep-mcp

dsh-rep-mcp

by PerryLink
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

rep_list

Lists .rep.json records in a directory, capped at 200 and sorted by newest name, enabling read-only inspection of sealed report files.

Instructions

List *.rep.json records in one directory (cap 200), newest name order. Read-only.

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": "rep_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dirNoDirectory to scan (default ".").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the 200-record cap (truncation risk), the 'newest name order' sorting, and that the operation is read-only. It omits what happens beyond the cap (pagination/truncation signal) and error behavior for a missing directory, so it is not fully complete.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the operation and the cap/ordering constraints immediately after. No filler; every clause contributes.

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 trivial one-optional-param read tool with no output schema, this covers scope, cap, ordering, and safety. A brief note on what each listed item is (name vs full path) and whether listing recurses would close the remaining gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with the single optional 'dir' default documented, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'in one directory' adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by implying a non-recursive scan rather than a tree walk.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('*.rep.json records') plus scope ('in one directory'), which naturally contrasts with the inspect/verify siblings that act on a single record. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The glob pattern and 'one directory' scope imply the enumeration use case, but the agent must infer that rep_inspect is for drilling into a single record.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools