Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
deepwork

deepwork

by saisharan0103
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Inspect the repository

inspect_repository
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a deterministic inventory of repository files using ripgrep, Git, manifests, and symlink scanning.

Instructions

Create a deterministic, concise inventory using ripgrep, Git, manifests, and a symlink/junction scan.

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": {
      "taskId": "<taskId>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_repository"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskIdYes
workspaceRootNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by specifying the exact methods (ripgrep, Git, manifests, symlink/junction scan), which helps the agent understand the operational scope beyond what annotations convey.

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?

The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core action. It uses no filler, but could arguably be more streamlined. Still, it is efficient for its length.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description explains what the tool does and how it works, but lacks parameter guidance and does not describe the output. Given the simple schema and annotations, it is minimally adequate but leaves the agent uncertain about parameter semantics and return value.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention or explain any parameters. With two parameters (taskId and workspaceRoot), the description fails to add meaning or usage context, leaving the agent to infer their purpose from names and constraints alone.

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?

The description clearly states the tool creates a deterministic inventory and lists the methods used (ripgrep, Git, manifests, symlink/junction scan). While it lacks specificity about what 'inventory' entails, it adequately defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from unrelated sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it complements other tools like final_gate or record_plan.

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