Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
coding-agent-mcp

coding-agent-mcp

by dmrtx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_repositories

List configured repository aliases and safe metadata to identify available repositories for your coding agents.

Instructions

Returns configured repository aliases and safe metadata

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_repositories"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Returns' indicates a read-only operation and 'safe metadata' suggests no side effects. However, it does not explain what 'safe metadata' includes, whether the result set is sorted, or what happens if no repositories are configured. Basic transparency is present but shallow.

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 short sentence with no filler. The key verb 'Returns' is front-loaded, and the object of the return is specified. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers the essential purpose. It could be more explicit about the return format and the meaning of 'safe metadata', but the tool is simple enough that an agent can call it confidently without additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed; the description is sufficient for calling the tool with an empty object.

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 clearly names the verb ('Returns') and the resource ('configured repository aliases and safe metadata'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_agents and get_repo_status. The phrase 'safe metadata' is slightly vague, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when it should be preferred over list_agents or get_repo_status, or any exclusions. The usage context is left entirely to inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools