MCP GitHub CrunchTools

List Repo Tree Tool

list_repo_tree_tool

Read-only

List the git tree (files and directories) of a GitHub repository.

Instructions

List the git tree (files and directories) of a GitHub 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": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "list_repo_tree_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`owner`	No	Repository owner (defaults to GITHUB_DEFAULT_ORG if unset)
`tree_sha`	No	Tree SHA, branch name, or "HEAD" (default: HEAD)	HEAD
`recursive`	No	Recurse into subtrees (default: false)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further — no mention of pagination, result size limits, or how recursion affects output — leaving the behavioral burden largely on structured fields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose is stated immediately. It is arguably thin for a four-parameter tool, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the description need not explain return values. However, for a tool sitting among several code-access siblings, it lacks any routing context, leaving a modest gap.

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% and all four parameters (repo, owner, tree_sha, recursive) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about SHA formats, owner defaults, or recursion depth, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('git tree ... of a GitHub repository'), and the parenthetical clarifies the tree contains files and directories. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_file_content_tool or search_code_tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 such as get_file_content_tool (fetch a single file) or search_code_tool (find code by pattern). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and description.

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