Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
falsepass

falsepass

by Super-Eric
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

falsepass_upstream

Finds an environment's GitHub source repository, compares audited files with its default branch, and reports licence, last push, open pull requests, and recent external merges.

Instructions

Find the environment's source repository on GitHub (repositories the package names in its project URLs or source first, then code search for the package name and for its most distinctive class and function names), compare every audited file with the repository's default branch, and report what a contributor needs: default branch, licence, last push, open pull requests, how many recent merges came from outside. repo (owner/name) checks one repository instead of searching. Needs the gh CLI, logged in.

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": {
      "env": "<env>"
    },
    "name": "falsepass_upstream"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
envYesthe audit's name as falsepass_init returned it: the folder under workdir/audits/
repoNoowner/name: check this repository instead of searching
limitNocandidate repositories to compare (default 5)
workdirNothe folder whose audits/ holds the audits (default: the current directory).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.15.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a fair amount: it discloses the GitHub-backed auth requirement (gh CLI, logged in), the search strategy (project URLs, then code search on package and distinctive symbol names), and the report contents (default branch, licence, last push, open PRs, outside-merge count). It does not address rate limits on GitHub code search, what happens if no candidate repository is found, or that the operation is read-only/no mutation. Adequate but not rich given zero annotation coverage.

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?

It is front-loaded with the purpose and every clause is substantive, but the whole definition is a single sprawling sentence with nested parentheticals, which is harder to parse than a short structured list of purpose, mode switch, and prerequisites. Nothing is redundant; the issue is structure, not length per se.

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?

This is a complex tool (network access, code search, per-file comparison) with no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the reported fields and the search methodology plus the auth prerequisite. Gaps remain around failure modes (no repo found, unauthenticated gh, rate limiting) and what the per-file comparison result looks like, which keeps it from a 5.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description does add intent-level meaning: it explains that `repo` switches the tool from search mode to single-repository mode, which is more than the schema's bare 'check this repository instead of searching'. `limit` and `workdir` are left entirely to the schema, so the added value is real but partial.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find the environment's source repository on GitHub') and then states the follow-on actions: compare audited files against the default branch and report contributor-relevant facts. It is clearly not a scan/audit tool like the falsepass_* siblings. It loses a point because the one-sentence, parenthetical-heavy construction makes the core purpose harder to extract than it should be, and it never explicitly contrasts itself with the similarly named falsepass_discover.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Clear context is given: the tool searches when no repo is supplied, and '`repo` (owner/name) checks one repository instead of searching' states the branching condition. The prerequisite 'Needs the `gh` CLI, logged in' is exactly the kind of gating information an agent needs before invoking. Missing is any explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to falsepass_discover, so it stops short of a 5.

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