get_repositoryRetrieve a specific repository's live git state by ID, including uncommitted worktree changes, to inspect current code during review.
Fetch one tracked repository by id, with its live git state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description correctly aligns with that. It adds the behavioral context that the response includes 'live git state', which informs the agent about the nature of the returned data. This goes beyond the annotation and adds value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word adds meaning, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple fetch operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is fetched and that the result includes live git state. There is no missing information that an agent would need to call the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter (id) with 0% description coverage. The description directly references 'by id', explaining that the id is the repository identifier. While it doesn't detail the type or constraints, the schema provides those, and the description clarifies the semantic purpose of the parameter, which compensates for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (fetch) and the resource (one tracked repository) with an id parameter. It also adds specificity by mentioning 'live git state', which distinguishes it from a simple metadata fetch. This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_repositories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for fetching a single repository when you have its id, which is clear from the phrase 'by id'. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions but provides clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.