Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@sandboxapis/mcp

@sandboxapis/mcp

by driftwork-llc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List the org's repositories

list_repositories

Fetch repositories for a specified provider (GitHub, Jira, etc.) with API-compatible data, enabling integration testing without real credentials.

Instructions

List repositories for the universe's org. Results are identical to the provider's REST API and carry provider-form ids (node_id / numeric id).

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": {
      "provider": "<provider>"
    },
    "name": "list_repositories"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
providerYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.14

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results mirror the provider's REST API and use provider-form ids (node_id/numeric), which is real behavioral context. However it says nothing about pagination, auth requirements, rate limits, or result ordering for a list endpoint.

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 no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the return-value caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple one-param list tool with no output schema, the id-format disclosure is helpful, but the description omits pagination behavior and how the single required provider param affects results — gaps an agent would hit when invoking.

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?

One required param ('provider') at 0% schema description coverage; the enum values are visible but the schema adds no meaning. The description only implies the param selects the provider/org, adding marginal semantics but not explaining how the provider shapes the returned ids.

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+resource ('List repositories') scoped to the universe's org. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular sibling get_repository, but never names siblings or clarifies scope boundaries explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_repository for a single repo or search_commits_by_author. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.

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