Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cohors

cohors

by rushirb2001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

Repository status

get_repo
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve complete status for one Git repository by id, name, or path: branch, ahead/behind counts, worktrees, stashes, recent activity, last commit, plus optional GitHub PRs, issues, and releases.

Instructions

Full status of ONE repository, found by id, name, or path — branch, upstream ahead/behind, worktree counts, stashes, recent activity, last commit, plus a local drill-in detail (recent commits, per-branch sync, changed files, stash list). Adds remote_detail (open PRs, contributors, open issues, latest release) when the repo has a GitHub remote and a token. Use when the user names a single repo; for several repos call list_repos with a selector instead.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_repo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesRepo id, name/alias, or path.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description adds real value by disclosing the conditional gating of remote_detail: it appears only when the repo has a GitHub remote AND a token is available. That is a meaningful prerequisite an agent could not derive from annotations. It does not mention cost, latency, or failure behavior for repos with no remote, which keeps it off 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?

Front-loaded with scope and return contents in a single dense but well-ordered sentence, followed by the routing rule. Every clause carries information, though the em-dash enumeration of return fields is heavy and the stray `detail` reference is noise given the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so thoroughly, including the conditional GitHub-remote enrichment. The main gap is the mention of a `detail` drill-in that the schema does not expose, which could lead an agent to attempt an unsupported argument.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single param is fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the accepted identifier forms (id, name/alias, or path), adding only marginal value. It also references a `detail` drill-in option that does not appear in the input schema, which slightly muddies rather than clarifies parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb+resource with explicit scope: "Full status of ONE repository, found by id, name, or path." It then enumerates exactly what is returned (branch, upstream ahead/behind, worktree counts, stashes, last commit) and names the sibling it is not (list_repos). An agent can distinguish this from list_repos without opening either 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?

Gives both sides of the routing decision: "Use when the user names a single repo; for several repos call list_repos with a selector instead." The alternative tool and the condition that selects it are named explicitly, leaving nothing 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