Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
zread-mcp

zread-mcp

by ejfkdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

find_repositories

Search code repositories by keyword with fuzzy matching on name, description, and topics. Supports results in Chinese or English.

Instructions

搜索代码仓库。

根据关键词模糊搜索已索引的代码仓库。 支持仓库名称、描述、主题等字段的模糊匹配。

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "find_repositories"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes搜索关键词，如 "react", "machine learning"
languageNo返回语言，可选 "zh" 或 "en"zh

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions fuzzy search and indexed repositories but omits behavioral traits like read-only nature, response format, pagination, or access requirements.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds necessary context. Efficient and direct.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 2-parameter tool without output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context about return value format, pagination, or behavior. It fails to specify output structure, making it incomplete.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide, so baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches code repositories using keywords with fuzzy matching on fields like name, description, and topics. The verb 'search' and resource 'code repositories' are specific, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'discover_repositories'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., discover_repositories, search_documentation). It does not provide context for when not to use it or mention prerequisites.

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