Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HAOps MCP Server

HAOps MCP Server

by tbranzov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

haops_git_list_files

List files and directories in a Git repository at a specified path, including multi-repo projects by providing a repository name.

Instructions

List files and directories in a project's Git repository at a given path. Returns directory entries with type (file/dir), name, and SHA. Supports multi-repo projects via repositoryName.

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": {
      "projectSlug": "<projectSlug>"
    },
    "name": "haops_git_list_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refNoGit ref/branch (default: main)
pathNoDirectory path (default: root)
projectSlugYesThe project slug (URL identifier)
repositoryNameNoRepository name for multi-repo projects (default: first/main repo)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.8.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses return structure but lacks details on behavior like pagination, recursion depth (likely only immediate children), performance, or auth requirements. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. Efficient and clear.

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?

Given no output schema, description explains return fields (type, name, SHA). Could improve by specifying it lists immediate children only and clarifying path format. Mostly complete for a listing tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal extra meaning: 'Supports multi-repo projects via repositoryName' echoes the schema. No additional semantics for ref, path, or projectSlug beyond what schema provides.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'files and directories in a project's Git repository at a given path'. It mentions return values (type, name, SHA) and distinguishes from sibling tools like haops_git_read_file by focusing on listing.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for listing directory contents but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like haops_git_commit_log or haops_git_read_file. No exclusions or context about when not to use it are provided.

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