MCP OpsBridge

github_get_file_contents

Retrieve file or directory contents from a GitHub repository using repo, path, and optional branch.

Instructions

Get contents of a file or directory from a repository

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>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "github_get_file_contents"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	File or directory path within the repo
`repo`	Yes	Owner/repo format
`branch`	No	Branch name	main

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the basic action. It does not mention how directory contents are returned, handling of binary files, error conditions, or any rate-limit concerns. The phrase 'file or directory' adds slight scope but no deep behavioral detail.

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?

A single sentence directly conveys the tool's purpose with no extraneous words. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple read tool with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally viable. However, since there is no output schema, the description could usefully specify return format (e.g., file content encoding, directory listing shape) to be fully complete. It is not inadequate but has clear gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for repo, path, and branch. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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.

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('contents of a file or directory from a repository'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like github_get_commits or github_search_issues. It leaves no ambiguity about what is retrieved.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for raw file/directory access, nor does it exclude use cases better served by github_get_commits, github_list_branches, or other siblings.

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