Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
phabricator-mcp

phabricator-mcp

by freelancer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

phabricator_file_info

Read-only

Fetch file metadata (name, size, MIME type, download URI) using a file ID or PHID, then use the returned URI to download the file.

Instructions

Get metadata about a file (name, size, MIME type, URI). Use the returned URI to download. Provide at least one of id or phid. Uses file.info (the only Conduit method that returns download URIs).

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": "phabricator_file_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoFile ID (provide this or phid)
phidNoFile PHID (provide this or id)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.19

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds real context: the URI-download workflow and the claim that file.info is the only method exposing download URIs. It stops short of describing errors or auth but adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotation.

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?

Three short sentences; the purpose and returned fields come first, then the action, then the parameter constraint and method rationale. No filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming name, size, MIME type and URI, plus how to consume the URI. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds the 'at least one of id or phid' constraint that the schema (required: []) does not enforce. That makes the constraint explicit where structured data leaves it ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get metadata about a file) and enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly distinct from siblings like phabricator_file_upload and phabricator_file_search.

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?

Tells the agent to use the returned URI to download and notes this is the only Conduit method that returns download URIs, which implicitly routes it ahead of siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with file_search, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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