OpenPapers

Find repository configs

find_repository_configs

List common configuration files at a given repository revision without executing code or recursive crawling, enabling quick inspection of project setup and dependencies.

Instructions

List common configuration files at a repository revision without executing or recursively crawling repository content.

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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "find_repository_configs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref`	No
`repo`	Yes
`owner`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does a solid job: it explicitly states that no code execution occurs and no recursive crawling happens, which are important safety and cost characteristics. It does not describe output shape or limits, but the core non-destructive, bounded behavior is clearly disclosed.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

One sentence with no filler; the primary action, object, and key exclusions are all present and front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple list operation but lacks usage context, alternative routing, and parameter details. With no output schema and no annotations, this leaves some gaps, though the scope itself is clear.

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 must compensate, but it only hints at 'repository revision' (ref) and 'repository' (owner/repo) without explaining formats, defaults, or relationships. The agent gets little beyond the schema's basic names and patterns.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('common configuration files at a repository revision'), and clarifies what it does not do ('without executing or recursively crawling repository content'). This distinguishes it from content-search siblings like find_implementations and from the singular get_repository_config.

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?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance and never mentions alternatives such as get_repository_config. It states the operation but leaves the agent to infer when this tool is the right choice versus a sibling.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.