CNB Remote MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Search public repositories

repo_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search public CNB repositories by keyword to locate relevant code and projects, with an optional top_n limit on returned results.

Instructions

Full-text search across public CNB repositories.

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": {
      "key": "<key>"
    },
    "name": "repo_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key`	Yes	Search keyword
`top_n`	No	Max results (default 10)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 5, 2026

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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the corpus is limited to public repositories, which is genuinely useful scoping context. It says nothing about match semantics, ranking, or empty-result behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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 zero filler, and the scope constraint appears immediately. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, but nothing in the text is wasted.

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 two-parameter read-only search tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers the essentials. However, it omits what a result looks like (repository objects? relevance scores?) and whether top_n caps at 50 silently, leaving the agent to discover output shape by calling it.

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%, so both 'key' and 'top_n' are documented with bounds and a default. The description adds nothing about search syntax (boolean operators, quoting, field prefixes) that would change how 'key' should be formed. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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: 'full-text search' over 'public CNB repositories'. That distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like repo_list and repo_get, though it does not name those siblings explicitly. The scope word 'public' is a useful qualifier an agent can act on.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent whether to prefer this over repo_list, repo_get, or npc_search, or whether search only matches names, descriptions, or README content. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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