MGSV MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

repository_source

Read-onlyIdempotent

Browse or read catalogued GitHub repository source at a cited commit to inspect files for MGSV tool or code update development; no code execution.

Instructions

Browse or read any catalogued GitHub repository for developing new tools/code updates. Resolves ref to a cited commit; no execution.

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": {
      "tool_id": "<tool_id>"
    },
    "name": "repository_source"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`ref`	No	HEAD
`path`	No
`tool_id`	Yes
`max_lines`	No
`start_line`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.2Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: 'Resolves ref to a cited commit' and 'no execution', which tell the agent the ref semantics and that no code is run.

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?

Two tight sentences with the verbs front-loaded and zero filler. The no-execution caveat is placed right after the core purpose where it matters.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is thin: it explains ref resolution and the read-only/no-execution nature but omits path, line-range, and tool_id semantics, leaving gaps an agent would need to fill by guessing.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description bears the full burden. It only clarifies the 'ref' parameter ('resolves ref to a cited commit') and says nothing about path, tool_id, max_lines, or start_line, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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?

States specific verbs (browse/read) and the resource (catalogued GitHub repository), scoped to 'developing new tools/code updates'. An agent can distinguish it from workspace siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like read_workspace_text or inspect_file.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'For developing new tools/code updates' implies the context of use, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no named alternatives among the many siblings. Usage must be inferred from the surrounding task.

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