Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HAOps MCP Server

HAOps MCP Server

by tbranzov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

haops_git_read_file

Read file content from a project's Git repository. Specify project, file path, and branch; returns text or a binary file indicator.

Instructions

Read file content from a project's Git repository. Returns text content for text files, or a "binary file" message for binary files. 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>",
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "haops_git_read_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refNoGit ref/branch (default: main)
filePathYesFile path in repository
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

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description provides some transparency (binary handling, multi-repo), but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or return format beyond basic content.

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?

The description is three concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded, containing no redundant words.

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?

For a read-file tool with no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers core functionality, binary handling, and multi-repo support, though it omits potential error conditions.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by explaining that repositoryName supports multi-repo projects, surpassing the baseline of 3.

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 'Read' and the resource 'file content from a project's Git repository', distinguishing it from sibling tools like haops_git_commit_diff or haops_git_list_files.

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 notes behavior for binary vs text files and multi-repo support, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or list exclusions.

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