Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CNB Remote MCP

CNB Remote MCP

by htazq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get repository details

repo_get
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch metadata such as description, visibility, default branch, and stats to inspect CNB repository details.

Instructions

Get metadata of a CNB repository (description, visibility, default branch, stats).

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": {
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "repo_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesRepository path, e.g. "owner/repo" or "group/subgroup/repo"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful value by naming the fields returned, but says nothing about failure modes (nonexistent repo, private repo without access) or auth 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the parenthetical field list is compact and informative rather than redundant.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the definition covers what the tool does and roughly what comes back, so no output schema is needed. Error/permission behavior is the only notable omission.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the 'owner/repo' or 'group/subgroup/repo' path format and length bounds. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline.

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 ('Get metadata of a CNB repository') and enumerates the returned fields (description, visibility, default branch, stats). This clearly separates it from siblings like repo_list or repo_search which enumerate rather than fetch a single repo, though the distinction is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. An agent must infer that this is the single-repo lookup rather than a listing/search call, and learns nothing about prerequisites such as read access to private repositories.

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