Skip to main content
Glama
repowise-dev

repowise

by repowise-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_answer

Answer how, where, or why developer questions in one evidence-grounded call, returning confidence-ranked conclusions and cited files.

Instructions

Answer a how, where, or why question in one evidence-grounded call.

High confidence is content-grounded and may be used directly. Medium
confidence keeps the smallest verification evidence; low confidence leads
with an actionable local conclusion and ranked evidence. ``candidate_files``
ranks the files worth opening that the citations do not name. Provider keys and
network access are optional: local source, symbols, FTS, rationale, and
data-shape evidence remain usable when embeddings or synthesis fail.

Responses fit 24,000 serialized characters. Pass ``include=["evidence"]``
for the deduplicated expanded projection, capped at 32,000. Reductions carry
totals, emitted counts, reasons, and a recovery: the same call with that include.

Args:
    question: Developer question.
    scope: Optional repository-relative path prefix.
    repo: Usually omitted; a workspace alias when needed.
    include: Optional ``["evidence"]`` expanded projection.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoNo
scopeNo
includeNo
questionYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.48.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / include
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Include"
+}
  2. Addedv0.39.0
  3. Removedv0.33.0
  4. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses confidence-tier behavior, candidate_files ranking, that provider keys/network are optional with local evidence surviving embedding/synthesis failure, response caps (24,000 / 32,000 chars), and that reductions carry totals, reasons, and a recovery call. It omits permission/auth needs and latency expectations, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, then behavior, then args. The confidence-tier paragraph is dense but each clause carries operational information; nothing reads as filler, though the prose could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description still adds size limits, the include projection, and degradation/recovery behavior. Combined with the Args block compensating for 0% schema coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only auth/permission context is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and the Args block does: question as a developer question, scope as a repo-relative path prefix, repo as a usually-omitted workspace alias, and include as the ['evidence'] expanded projection with its size cap. This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema types, though it does not cover edge cases like invalid include values.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Answer a how, where, or why question in one evidence-grounded call.' The question-type scoping hints at the boundary with the sibling get_why, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer which tool wins for a why-question.

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?

Usage is only implied by the question types it accepts ('how, where, or why') and by the confidence/include mechanics. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (get_why, search_codebase) to route between, so tool selection guidance is left to inference.

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