Skip to main content
Glama
nathan-hoche

reposniffer-mcp

by nathan-hoche
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

repo_intel

Evaluates GitHub repositories for activity, licensing, and quality to confirm they are safe dependencies, returning a verdict and alternative options.

Instructions

Verify an existing repo the agent already found: is it alive, licensed, and best-of-kind? Returns a status verdict plus a few alternatives.

Use BEFORE committing to a dependency to catch archived/stale/no-license repos.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNo
top_kNo
owner_repoYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.1.4
    • removedInput schema / $defs
      Removed value: -{
-  "RepoIntelParams": {
-    "properties": {
-      "owner_repo": {
-        "description": "The 'owner/repo' you are considering, e.g. 'encode/uv'.",
-        "title": "Owner Repo",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "query": {
-        "anyOf": [
-          {
-            "type": "string"
-          },
-          {
-            "type": "null"
-          }
-        ],
-        "default": null,
-        "description": "Optional feature query to frame the comparison.",
-        "title": "Query"
-      },
-      "top_k": {
-        "default": 2,
-        "description": "How many alternative repos to suggest.",
-        "maximum": 5,
-        "minimum": 0,
-        "title": "Top K",
-        "type": "integer"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "owner_repo"
-    ],
-    "title": "RepoIntelParams",
-    "type": "object"
-  }
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / owner_repo
      Added value: +{
+  "title": "Owner Repo",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / params
      Removed value: -{
-  "$ref": "#/$defs/RepoIntelParams"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / query
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Query"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / top_k
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 2,
+  "title": "Top K",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "params"
-]New value: +[
+  "owner_repo"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions returning a verdict and alternatives but does not explicitly state read-only nature or potential rate limits. For a simple verification tool, this is sufficient but could be more explicit.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—with no redundant information. Every word contributes to purpose or usage.

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 simple tool, the description covers purpose, usage, and output. However, the lack of parameter explanations creates a gap. Given the output schema exists, the description could have been more complete by addressing parameters, but overall it is adequate.

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?

The schema has three parameters (query, top_k, owner_repo) with no descriptions. The description only alludes to owner_repo indirectly ('existing repo') and does not explain query or top_k. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter semantics largely unexplained.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: verifying a repo's health, license, and quality. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (find_repos, health) by focusing on verification of an existing repo.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly instructs to use 'BEFORE committing to a dependency' and lists criteria (archived/stale/no-license), giving clear when-to-use guidance. Also implies when not to use.

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