Clone a remote Git architecture repository into a specified local directory and validate its architecture declaration file to ensure a reliable working copy.
Explicitly clone and validate a remote Git architecture repository.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| branch | No | ||
| remote_url | Yes | ||
| target_path | Yes | ||
| include_tags | No | ||
| declaration_path | No | architecture.yaml |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It reveals only the basic action (clone and validate) but fails to disclose side effects like directory creation, authentication needs, branch checkout specifics, or what validation entails. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate consequences.
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 a single short sentence, which is concise in length but under-specified in content. It lacks any structured breakdown or front-loaded critical details, making it more a placeholder than an informative definition.
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?
For a tool with five parameters, no annotations, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain validation behavior, parameter semantics, or expected outcomes, making it inadequate for correct invocation.
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%, and the description does not mention any of the five parameters (remote_url, target_path, branch, include_tags, declaration_path). The agent receives no additional meaning beyond the schema's titles and types, which is a major gap.
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?
States a specific verb 'clone' and a clear resource 'remote Git architecture repository', and adds 'validate' which distinguishes its behavior. It is unambiguous about the core action, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like repository_fetch or repository_pull, which is why it does not reach 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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as repository_fetch or repository_pull. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.