repo_showRetrieve a Lizard Git repository's details by owner/name, including default branch, visibility, your role, empty status, branch count, and open issue and pull request counts.
Read a Lizard Git repository's details: default branch, visibility, the user's role, whether it is empty, branch and open issue/pull request counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | Lizard Git repository as "owner/name" (repo_list) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing what the response contains (role, visibility, empty flag, counts), which is the main behavioral fact an agent needs and which annotations cannot convey.
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?
One compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the payload fields. No 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?
Since there is no output schema, naming the returned fields in the description is exactly the right compensation and makes the tool callable without guesswork. Only minor gaps remain: error behavior for missing/inaccessible repos is unstated.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'repo' parameter is documented with the 'owner/name' pattern plus a pointer to repo_list. The description adds no further syntax or format meaning, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a Lizard Git repository's details') and enumerates the concrete fields returned: default branch, visibility, user role, empty flag, branch and issue/PR counts. This makes it clearly the single-repo detail reader, distinct from repo_list/repo_files/pr_list siblings.
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?
Usage is only implied: it takes an owner/name identifier, so an agent infers it is for inspecting one known repo. There is no explicit when-to-use vs repo_list/repo_files, no note about access requirements for private repos, and no mention of behavior on a nonexistent repo.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.