mister-parc-mcp

Les dépôts

parc_depots

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists public repositories with one-line CI, vulnerability, CodeQL, PR, site, socle, ruleset, and last-commit status; optionally filter by family.

Instructions

Les dépôts publics du compte, une ligne chacun : famille, CI (verts, rouges, en cours), alertes de vulnérabilité, alertes CodeQL, PR ouvertes, site en ligne, version du socle, état du ruleset, date du dernier commit.

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": "parc_depots"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`famille`	No	Ne garder qu'une famille de dépôts.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`depots`	Yes
`genere`	Yes	Date du relevé qui fonde la réponse (ISO 8601).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope information (per-row aggregation of CI, vulnerability, CodeQL, PR, ruleset and commit state), but an output schema exists, so much of that enumeration is redundant with structured data. No mention of pagination, volume, or rate limits for an open-world aggregate.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with what the resource is, followed by the row contents. Dense but every clause identifies a real returned field; no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and only one optional filter parameter, the definition supplies enough for correct invocation. The only gap is lack of sibling differentiation, which matters given eleven nearby parc_* tools.

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% and the single optional 'famille' parameter is documented in the schema with enum values and a description. The tool description adds nothing about filtering, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names the resource precisely ('les dépôts publics du compte, une ligne chacun') and enumerates the fields each row carries, which lets an agent distinguish this aggregated listing from the singular parc_depot detail tool. No explicit verb, but 'une ligne chacun' makes the list semantics unambiguous.

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 never states when to use this tool versus siblings such as parc_depot (detail) or parc_etat/parc_sites, nor does it mention the optional famille filter's effect on results. The agent must infer the routing from tool names alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.