Skip to main content
Glama

Argocd List Repositories

argocd_list_repositories
Read-onlyIdempotent

List Argo CD repositories with slim rows and connection state, filter by project or URL, and check whether credentials are configured without exposing them.

Instructions

List repositories with slim rows and connection state. Credentials are never returned; has_credentials reports whether any are configured.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoNoFilter by repo URL
limitNoMax results to return (1-200)
offsetNoResult offset for paging
app_projectNoFilter by project
force_refreshNoRe-check connection state

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
      -  "properties": {
      -    "result": {
      -      "type": "string"
      -    }
      -  },
      -  "required": [
      -    "result"
      -  ],
      -  "type": "object",
      -  "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
      -}New value: +null
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: credentials are never returned, and has_credentials signals whether any exist, which is security-relevant output semantics not present in the structured fields.

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 compact sentences; the return-shape fact is front-loaded and the credential constraint follows immediately. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the response (slim rows, connection state, has_credentials) and the credential exclusion. Paging behavior and the distinction from repository-adjacent siblings remain unaddressed, but the essential call information is present.

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 all five parameters (repo, limit, offset, app_project, force_refresh) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no filtering, paging, or refresh semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List repositories') and adds scope detail: 'slim rows and connection state'. An agent knows exactly what the tool returns at a high level. It stops short of naming or distinguishing itself from repo-related siblings like argocd_get_repository_refs or argocd_list_repository_apps.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the repository-adjacent siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. Usage is only inferable from the tool name itself.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.