Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
git-finder-mcp

git-finder-mcp

by dudckd6744
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_file_tree

Retrieve a project's file and folder tree to understand its structure and refine search scope.

Instructions

프로젝트의 파일/폴더 구조를 반환합니다. 프로젝트 구조를 파악하거나 검색 범위를 좁힐 때 사용합니다.

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": {
      "project": "<project>"
    },
    "name": "get_file_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNo트리 깊이 (기본: 3)
projectYes프로젝트 이름

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (returns file/folder structure) and implies a safe read operation, but does not describe return format, depth limits beyond schema, or any side effects. For a simple read tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core function and followed by usage context. No redundant or filler content.

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 simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and usage. It lacks an explicit description of the return format, but the concept of a file tree is intuitive and the sibling tools provide context.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'project' and 'depth' including the default value. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states 'Returns the file/folder structure of the project' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like search_code and read_file. The second sentence adds a use case ('when narrowing search scope'), which reinforces its unique role.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides clear usage context: 'used when understanding the project structure or narrowing down the search scope.' This implies a contrast with search tools, though no sibling tool is explicitly named or excluded.

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