Retrieve details about a Codeup repository by providing organization ID and repository ID or org/repo path.
[Code Management] Get information about a Codeup repository
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repositoryId | Yes | Repository ID, or org/repo path with slashes URL-encoded as %2F. e.g. 2835387 or myorg%2Fmyrepo | |
| organizationId | Yes | Organization ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.60Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / organizationId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Organization ID, can be found in the basic information page of the organization admin console"New value: +"Organization ID"Input schema / properties / repositoryId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Repository ID or a combination of organization ID and repository name, for example: 2835387 or organizationId%2Frepo-name (Note: slashes need to be URL encoded as %2F)"New value: +"Repository ID, or org/repo path with slashes URL-encoded as %2F. e.g. 2835387 or myorg%2Fmyrepo"Input schema / properties / repositoryId / typePrevious value: -"string"New value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only states 'get information,' which implies read-only but does not disclose any additional traits such as required permissions, potential errors, or side effects.
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, concise sentence that states the action and target. It avoids unnecessary details and is well-structured, making it easy to parse.
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 simple getter with no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not elaborate on what 'information' entails or when this tool is most useful, though it is sufficient for basic usage.
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?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (repositoryId and organizationId), covering 100% of them. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema states, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to retrieve information about a Codeup repository. This is distinct from sibling tools that handle other entities like commits or change requests.
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?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. It lacks explicit conditions or scenarios where this getter would be preferred over other repository-related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.