Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cohors

cohors

by rushirb2001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

Fleet summary

fleet_summary
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve fleet-wide git repository counts for total, needs-attention, risk, unpushed, behind, dirty, conflicted, stashed, and errors to gauge overall state before drilling into individual repos.

Instructions

The cheapest "is anything on fire?" call: fleet-wide counts only — total, needs-attention, risk (the "drop everything" bucket), unpushed, behind, dirty, conflicted, stashed, errors. Use it first to gauge overall state, then drill in with list_repos. Takes no arguments.

Tool call template

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": "fleet_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses that results are fleet-wide counts only, not per-repository details, and names the count buckets including the risk bucket. It also frames this as the cheapest first-pass check, which helps the agent understand cost and sequencing.

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 core purpose and intended first-pass use are front-loaded, and the metric list is compact but complete. There is no redundant or filler wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-argument, read-only count summary with no output schema, the description provides enough context: scope, returned count categories, intended sequencing, and the drill-down alternative. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by saying it takes no arguments, which is useful confirmation even though the schema already makes that clear.

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 states a specific resource and scope: fleet-wide counts only, with the exact count categories listed. It distinguishes this summary from the drill-down sibling by saying list_repos is for drilling in, so an agent can choose correctly without opening another schema.

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?

It explicitly says to use this first to gauge overall state, then use list_repos to drill in. That gives both the primary use case and the alternative, which is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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