List connected repositories with their analysis status, language, and framework.
List connected repositories with their analysis status, language, and framework.
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_repos"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and specifying the returned fields gives some behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-mutating, does not mention authentication requirements, or describe potential pagination/limitations. It is adequate but not rich.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('List') and the core content. There is no wasted information; every word adds meaning.
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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states the subject ('connected repositories') and the attributes shown. However, it could benefit from a note about the scope (e.g., all connected repositories vs. a subset) or a pointer to 'repo_details' for more granular info, but these are nice-to-have rather than essential.
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 tool takes no parameters, and the schema is an empty object, meaning 100% coverage by definition. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('connected repositories') along with the key fields returned ('analysis status, language, framework'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'repo_details' (single repo) and 'list_reviews' (reviews).
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where another sibling (e.g., 'repo_details' for detailed info) would be more appropriate. Usage context is only implied by the name and the phrase 'connected repositories.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.