remove_repositoryStop tracking a repository in GitWarren without deleting or modifying the local working copy. Remove it from the server's tracking list while preserving all files on disk.
Stop tracking a repository. This only removes it from GitWarren - the working copy on disk is never touched.
| 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 declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds a crucial nuance: the working copy on disk is never touched. This clarifies the exact scope of destruction, which is not inferable from annotations alone. It aligns with the destructive hint but provides essential context that the operation does not affect local files.
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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, the second clarifies a key behavioral distinction. All information is front-loaded and essential, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior, the description provides the essential scope (removal from GitWarren, not disk). It is largely complete, though it could optionally mention the effect on associated data (e.g., reviews) or return behavior, but these are not critical for correct invocation.
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 no description for the required 'id' parameter (0% coverage), and the tool description does not mention the parameter at all. The meaning of 'id' is likely inferable from the context (repository ID), but the description fails to explicitly state what it refers to, leaving the agent to rely on assumptions. With zero schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
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 states a specific verb ('Stop tracking') and resource ('a repository'), and immediately distinguishes what it does not do ('the working copy on disk is never touched'). This is a clear, non-tautological statement that differentiates it from sibling tools like get_repository or add_repository.
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 ('Stop tracking a repository') but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. There are sibling tools like remove_review for other resources, but no explicit routing guidance is provided. The intent is clear from context, but it lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.