Read a file's contents from a GitHub repository at a given branch, tag, or commit SHA to inspect source code or configuration without cloning the repo.
Read a file's contents from a GitHub repository at a given ref.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Branch, tag, or commit SHA. Defaults to the default branch. | |
| path | Yes | Path to the file within the repo, e.g. src/index.ts | |
| repo | No | ||
| owner | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description still conveys that this is a read operation returning file contents, which is minimally sufficient. However, it omits authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior for missing files, encoding/size limits, and does not describe the response structure (there is no output schema).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. The verb and resource appear immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is too thin. It does not explain how owner/repo are provided, does not describe the return value beyond 'contents,' and leaves auth/error behavior unstated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%, with repo and owner undocumented in both schema and description. The description only vaguely references 'at a given ref' and does not clarify how owner/repo are supplied or add meaning beyond the schema's own path/ref descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('file's contents from a GitHub repository at a given ref'), making the core action clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like github_list_directory and github_search_code by outcome, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: call this when you know the file path and want its contents. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, and no mention of using github_list_directory to discover paths or github_search_code to locate files.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.