check_repositoryRun an anonymous diagnostic on a public GitHub repository to check MCP directory readiness before submission.
Anonymous free diagnostic for a public GitHub repository. This is not the per-destination purchase preflight.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| manifest | No | ||
| repository_url | Yes | Public https://github.com/owner/repository URL. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description provides valuable operational context beyond the structured data, specifically that the diagnostic is 'Anonymous' and 'free.' This provides the agent with critical usage constraints (e.g., no authentication needed) that are not covered by the annotations.
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?
The definition is highly concise and effective. It front-loads the key value proposition ('Anonymous free diagnostic') and the key limitation, ensuring maximum information density in minimal text.
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?
Given the complexity of distinguishing between multiple preflight siblings, the description is highly complete by defining the scope (public GitHub) and the product tier (free vs. paid). It leaves no ambiguity regarding the tool's operational boundaries.
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?
While the description confirms the required input type is a URL and suggests an optional manifest, it does not add significant meaning or semantic detail beyond what is loosely implied by the input schema structure. Since schema coverage is moderate (50%), a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly defines the tool's purpose as an 'Anonymous free diagnostic' for a specific resource type: a public GitHub repository. It achieves good clarity by specifying both the nature of the check (diagnostic) and the target (public GitHub).
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?
This tool excels at usage guidance by explicitly stating what it is NOT ('This is not the per-destination purchase preflight'). This tells the AI precisely when to use this free version versus more expensive or comprehensive sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.