get_repositoryRetrieve one repository by provider and optional repo name to build or test integrations. Defaults to the flagship repo.
Fetch one repository by name (default: the flagship repo). Provider-shaped, with provider-form ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | No | Repo name, e.g. 'parthenon'. Defaults to the flagship repo. | |
| provider | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Provider-shaped, with provider-form ids' is opaque jargon that does not tell the agent what the response contains, what happens on an unknown repo name, or whether authentication/scopes are required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences with the core action and default front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is short but cryptic rather than wasteful, so it is efficiently sized overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the returned shape, error behavior, and provider-specific semantics, but it leaves all of that to an unexplained phrase. For a fetch tool keyed on a 21-value provider enum, this is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 50% (the provider parameter has an enum but no description). The description merely restates the repo default that the schema already documents and adds the vague phrase 'provider-form ids' without explaining how provider affects lookup semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one repository by name') plus the default behavior, which implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_repositories. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling or the entity's scope, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The 'fetch one repository by name' framing implies a single-entity lookup as opposed to list_repositories, and the default note hints at the no-argument case. However, it never states when to use this over orient, get_snapshot, or list_repositories, nor any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.