OpenPapers

Get repository config

get_repository_config

Read a repository's configuration file at a specified revision by providing owner, repo, and path. Access settings without executing code, enabling provenance checks and reproducible research workflows.

Instructions

Read a repository file statically at an optional revision. Repository content is never executed.

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>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "get_repository_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description explicitly discloses a key behavioral guarantee: repository content is never executed. However, with no annotations, it does not cover other important traits such as return format, authentication requirements, rate limits, or how missing revisions are handled.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted words. The most important safety-related behavior is front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the returned data looks like, how path should be interpreted, or what happens when ref is omitted, leaving meaningful gaps for correct use.

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. It only hints at the optional revision via 'at an optional revision', and owner, repo, and path are left entirely implicit. This is minimal added meaning beyond the schema field names.

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 clear action ('Read a repository file') and adds a distinguishing qualifier ('statically', 'never executed'). It is clear about the resource, though it says 'repository file' rather than 'repository config', leaving slight ambiguity about scope.

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. With many siblings including find_repository_configs, the description should clarify when to read a specific file versus search for configs, but it does not.

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