Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TaskBounty Check

TaskBounty Check

by eliottreich
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

scan_repo

Scan local repository workflow files for CI maintenance issues, returning categorized findings with file locations and suggested fixes.

Instructions

Scan a LOCAL repository for GitHub Actions + CI maintenance hygiene. Reads only workflow files on disk; makes no network requests and uploads nothing. Returns a text summary of findings by category with file/line and suggested fixes.

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": "scan_repo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoLocal path to a repo or a directory of repos. Defaults to the current directory.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.6

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behaviors: no network requests, no uploads, and reads only workflow files. This adds transparency beyond the schema, though it doesn't mention permissions or side effects.

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?

The description is concise with three sentences: purpose, behavioral constraints, and output format. It is front-loaded and each sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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?

Given the simple tool (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, behavior, and output adequately. However, it could mention error handling or path validation for completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'path'. The description adds value by mentioning the default (current directory), which is not in the schema. This helps the agent understand the parameter's behavior.

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?

The description clearly states the tool scans a local repository for GitHub Actions and CI maintenance hygiene, using action verbs and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from siblings (explain_finding, generate_fix_plan) which are post-scan actions.

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?

The description implies usage for local repository scanning (e.g., 'LOCAL repository', 'reads only workflow files on disk'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, though siblings are different enough to infer.

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