Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
repo-inspector-mcp

repo-inspector-mcp

by mi6gin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_files

List readable source files below a repository path to reveal the project's file tree. Control scan depth with a max depth parameter to limit results.

Instructions

List readable source files below a repository path.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNo.
max_depthNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys a read-only listing action and a 'readable' filter, but it does not disclose recursion behavior, whether directories are included, symlink handling, or permission-related limits. For a simple listing tool this is a minimal but not rich disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one concise front-loaded sentence. It states the action, resource, and scope immediately, with no filler. For a simple listing tool this is well-structured and appropriately sized.

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 an output schema present, the return shape is covered. However, the description lacks details about max_depth semantics, hidden/file types, and usage relative to siblings. Given the low complexity of the tool, this is adequate but leaves some context gaps an agent would need to disambiguate during invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies 'path' refers to a repository path, but it does not explain max_depth or add meaning beyond the schema defaults. The description adds almost no parameter semantics beyond what the agent can infer from the parameter names and defaults.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action: listing readable source files below a repository path. The verb 'list' plus the resource 'source files below a repository path' clearly differentiates it from sibling tools read_file (content reading) and search_in_repo (searching).

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use list_files rather than read_file or search_in_repo. It neither names alternatives nor states conditions for exclusion. The only context is the sibling tool names, which require the agent to infer relationships.

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