Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
organisation.md

organisation.md

by shashank-sn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

configure_codeowners

Define code owners for specific paths by updating the .github/codeowners file, ensuring proper review approvals.

Instructions

update the .github/codeowners file to define who can approve changes to specific paths.

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": {
      "pattern": "<pattern>",
      "owners": "<owners>"
    },
    "name": "configure_codeowners"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
patternYespath pattern (e.g., 'organisation.md', 'CONTEXT/', '*.md')
ownersYesgithub usernames or team names, space-separated (e.g., '@alice @bob' or '@org/team')
messageNodescription of why this ownership is being added/changed

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'update', implying mutation without disclosing effects (e.g., file overwrite, permission requirements, impact on PRs).

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 clear sentence with no filler, though it could benefit from more detail without being verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters, the description is too minimal. It lacks information about return values, error conditions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra context beyond the action, so it meets the baseline but adds no value.

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 clearly states it updates the .github/codeowners file to define ownership for specific paths, which is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_info or remove_info.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it or any prerequisites.

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