Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
zoekt-mcp

zoekt-mcp

by radiovisual
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_file

Retrieve the complete content of a file from an indexed repository by specifying repo, path, and optional branch (default HEAD). Returns file content along with metadata.

Instructions

Fetch the full contents of a file from an indexed repository.

    ``repo`` is the repository name as reported by ``list_repos``;
    ``path`` is the file path within that repo; ``branch`` defaults
    to ``HEAD`` but can be any branch zoekt has indexed. Returns
    ``{"repo", "path", "branch", "content"}``.

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": "<repo>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "get_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYes
pathYes
branchNoHEAD

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.2

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Describes the return format and parameter usage, but does not mention error conditions or failure modes (e.g., file not found), and annotations are absent.

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?

Concise three-sentence description with clear front-loading: first sentence states purpose, second details parameters, third mentions return format, with no extraneous content.

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?

Adequate for a simple fetch tool: covers inputs, defaults, and output structure. Could mention that path is relative to repo root, but overall sufficient.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Adds meaning to each parameter (repo from list_repos, path within repo, branch default) despite 0% schema description coverage, though does not specify format constraints.

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?

Clearly states the tool fetches file contents from a repository, using specific verbs and resources. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_code, but the action is distinct enough.

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?

Provides context by referencing list_repos for repo names and explaining branch defaults, but lacks explicit guidance on when to avoid this tool or when to use search_code instead.

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