Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BitPull

BitPull

by SamuealPK
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

bitpull_hub_files

Read-only

List GGUF files in a Hugging Face repository to identify available model files, so you can choose which ones to download or reference.

Instructions

GGUF files of a Hugging Face 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>"
    },
    "name": "bitpull_hub_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description needed to add context such as what is returned (a file listing?), whether results are paginated or truncated, or whether it requires a valid/authorized repo. None of that is disclosed; the description only restates the resource type.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

There is zero wasted wording, but the single noun phrase is under-specified rather than tightly scoped, so brevity comes at the cost of clarity. A verb-led sentence would have been equally short and far more informative.

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?

With no output schema and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description must explain return shape and usage, and it explains neither. For a listing tool whose value depends on knowing what the output contains, this is a significant gap.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining 'repo' but only gestures at 'a Hugging Face repository' without stating the expected identifier format (e.g. org/name) or whether it must exist publicly. This leaves the sole required parameter ambiguous.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

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

The phrase 'GGUF files of a Hugging Face repository' identifies the resource (model files in a repo) but is a noun fragment with no verb, so the agent must infer it lists/enumerates rather than downloads or searches. It also fails to separate this from siblings like bitpull_search_hub or bitpull_download_model.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no statement about when to pick this over bitpull_search_hub, bitpull_download_model, or fetch_files, and no prerequisites such as needing a repo identifier or auth. The agent is left to guess the selection condition.

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