Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CNB Remote MCP

CNB Remote MCP

by htazq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List my repositories

repo_list
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists repositories owned by the authenticated CNB user, with name filtering and pagination, to quickly locate and browse available projects.

Instructions

List repositories owned by the authenticated CNB user.

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": "repo_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number, starting at 1
searchNoFilter by name keyword
page_sizeNoItems per page (max 100)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the meaningful scoping fact that only the authenticated user's repositories are returned, but says nothing about pagination behavior, defaults, or total counts despite exposing paging parameters.

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 filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why usage routing and paging behavior go unaddressed.

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 simple, fully-annotated, zero-required-parameter list tool the description is serviceable, and no output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Still missing is any routing against the repo_search sibling and any note on pagination, which matter for an open-world paginated list.

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 all three parameters (page, page_size, search) are documented inline with bounds and meaning. The description adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List') and resource ('repositories') plus the ownership scope ('owned by the authenticated CNB user'), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling repo_search, which is the main ambiguity an agent faces.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings repo_search, repo_get, and repo_list all plausibly applicable, the description never says which to pick — e.g. whether repo_search covers other users' repos or whether repo_list should be used for the caller's own inventory.

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