Skip to main content
Glama
mcp-git-ingest

mcp-git-ingest

by adhikasp

Git Read Important Files

git_read_important_files

Reads specified files from a Git repository URL, letting AI inspect important code and understand repository structure.

Instructions

Read the contents of specified files in a given git 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_url": "<repo_url>",
      "file_paths": "<file_paths>"
    },
    "name": "git_read_important_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repo_urlYesThe URL of the Git repository
file_pathsYesList of file paths to read (relative to repository root)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not disclose authentication requirements, handling of private repositories, missing files, large files, binary files, or whether the repository is cloned or accessed remotely.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is concise, though the extreme brevity leaves little structure for anything beyond the core action.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a tool with no annotations and two required parameters, the description does not cover practical operational context such as repository access, error behavior, or how it differs from the sibling directory-listing tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both repo_url and file_paths. The description only restates that files are specified in a given repository and adds no extra detail such as path glob support, relative path rules, or ordering behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource: read the contents of specified files in a given git repository. It clearly conveys the core action, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling git_directory_structure tool.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites such as repository access, and no exclusions or context beyond the basic action. The agent must infer that this is for known file paths only.

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