Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
phabricator-mcp

phabricator-mcp

by freelancer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

phabricator_phid_lookup

Read-only

Resolve human-readable Phabricator names such as task IDs, revision IDs, and usernames into PHIDs for use in API calls and cross-object references.

Instructions

Look up PHIDs by human-readable names (e.g., "T123", "D456", "@username")

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": {
      "names": "<names>"
    },
    "name": "phabricator_phid_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
namesYesNames to look up (e.g., ["T123", "D456", "@john"])

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.19

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower, but the description adds nothing behavioral: it doesn't say whether unknown names cause an error or are skipped, whether the result preserves input order, or how many names can be batched. The only extra content is input formatting, which belongs to parameter semantics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted framing. Slightly redundant examples relative to the schema keep it from a 5, but it is appropriately sized for a simple lookup.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only lookup this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema the description should say what comes back (e.g., a name-to-PHID mapping) and whether missing names error out. As written, the agent knows the input shape but not the return or failure behavior.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already gives the same examples (["T123", "D456", "@john"]), so the description's examples are essentially redundant. Baseline 3 applies when the schema fully documents the single parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (look up PHIDs) plus the input domain (human-readable names), which cleanly separates it from the many *_search tools. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling phabricator_phid_query, which sounds like it could serve a similar or overlapping role.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The purpose implies when you'd use it (converting names to PHIDs), but there is no explicit guidance on alternatives such as phabricator_phid_query, or on when not to use it. Usage must be inferred from the name and the examples.

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