Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
coderocket-mcp

coderocket-mcp

by mlgraham
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

repo_details

Fetch comprehensive repository details including analysis results, readiness score, optimizations, and generation history. Use this tool to assess repository health and track CI/CD workflow generation progress.

Instructions

Get comprehensive repository details: analysis results, readiness score, optimizations, and generation history.

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": {
      "repo_id": "<repo_id>"
    },
    "name": "repo_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repo_idYesRepository ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose safety and side effects. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, and the listed content types indicate return data, but it does not explicitly state the operation is safe, error behavior, or any prerequisites. It adds some transparency beyond the schema but not comprehensive.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and a list of deliverables. No filler words; every part adds value.

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?

For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview of the return content by listing four specific categories. It does not describe the exact response structure, but it is adequate for a simple get operation.

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?

The schema already describes repo_id as 'Repository ID' with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage context for the parameter, so it relies entirely on the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'repository details,' listing concrete content types (analysis results, readiness score, optimizations, generation history). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_repos (listing) and get_review (reviews).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for fetching detailed information about a single repository, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like list_repos or mention exclusions. The context is clear but no explicit guidance is provided.

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