Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agent-services-mcp

agent-services-mcp

by ludoplex
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

git_archive_repo

Archive a Git repository with final backup push, saving ~375 tokens. Optionally mark as archived on GitHub.

Instructions

Archive a repository with final backup push. Saves ~375 tokens.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "git_archive_repo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesRepository path
archiveOnGitHubNoMark as archived on GitHub (default: false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions 'final backup push' and 'saves ~375 tokens' but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires specific permissions. The behavioral impact beyond the stated action is unclear.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key action and resource. The token saving hint adds value without extra verbosity. Could be slightly more structured, but efficient.

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?

With no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate for a simple tool with two well-documented parameters. However, lacks detail on return values, side effects, or error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema documents both parameters adequately.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'archive' and resource 'repository', and adds 'with final backup push' which distinguishes it from a simple archive. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like git_sync_backup, which may also involve backup.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. Siblings like git_sync_backup are present but not contrasted.

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