gfi-scout

get_contribution_guide

Retrieve a summarized contribution guide and setup instructions for any GitHub repository to understand how to contribute.

Instructions

Pull and summarise a repo's contribution guide + setup instructions.

Args:
    repo: Full repo name, e.g. "fastapi/fastapi".

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": {
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "get_contribution_guide"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source_files`	Yes
`pr_conventions`	Yes
`repo_full_name`	Yes
`required_tools`	Yes
`setup_complexity`	Yes
`setup_instructions`	Yes
`contributing_summary`	Yes
`testing_requirements`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

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 gives no details about whether it is read-only, requires network access, or how it handles missing guides. There is no mention of side effects or failure modes.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence and providing parameter details in the second. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and parameter format. It does not need to explain return values due to the output schema, though it could add a note about potential errors when no guide exists.

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?

The description adds meaningful value for the 'repo' parameter by specifying the expected format ('Full repo name') and providing an example. Since the schema only has a type and title with no description, this guidance is helpful.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Pull and summarise') and resource ('contribution guide + setup instructions'). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools focused on repo health, issues, and finding issues.

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 only implies when to use the tool (when contribution guide/setup instructions are needed) and does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. While the sibling context makes the use case fairly obvious, explicit guidance is missing.

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

Deploy Server