Skip to main content
Glama
fovi-llc

Radicle + GitHub MCP Server

by fovi-llc

rad_patch_list

View all patches in a Radicle repository to track code changes and collaboration status.

Instructions

List patches in a Radicle repository.

Args:
    repository_path: Path to the repository (default: current directory)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repository_pathNo.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for 'rad_patch_list' tool. It executes the 'rad patch list' command using the shared run_rad_command helper and formats the output with success/error messages.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def rad_patch_list(repository_path: str = ".") -> str:
        """
        List patches in a Radicle repository.
        
        Args:
            repository_path: Path to the repository (default: current directory)
        """
        result = await run_rad_command(["rad", "patch", "list"], cwd=repository_path)
        
        if result["success"]:
            if result["stdout"]:
                return f"📋 Patches in repository:\n{result['stdout']}"
            else:
                return "📋 No patches found in repository"
        else:
            return f"❌ Failed to list patches: {result['stderr']}"
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to 'List patches', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, output format, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with behavioral implications.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise parameter explanation. It uses minimal words without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter default adequately. However, it lacks behavioral details and usage context, making it only minimally viable for agent selection.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter by explaining that 'repository_path' defaults to the current directory, which clarifies its usage beyond the schema's basic title. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensation is effective, though not exhaustive.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'patches in a Radicle repository', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'rad_issue_list' or 'rad_remote_list', which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or contextual cues for selection, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/fovi-llc/radicle-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server