Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Git MCP Server

Git MCP Server

by yumeminami
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_fork_info

Retrieve fork information for a repository, including fork status, parent repository, and other details. Requires platform and project ID.

Instructions

Get fork information for a repository

Args: platform: The platform name (github, gitlab) project_id: The repository ID to check

Returns: Dictionary with fork status, parent repository, and other fork details

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": {
      "platform": "<platform>",
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_fork_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
platformYes
project_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.5

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions return format, omitting permissions needed, error conditions, or whether the repository must exist.

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 concise with two paragraphs, each line providing necessary information without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the existence of an output schema, the return description suffices. However, there is no context about error handling or prerequisites, and with sibling tools involving forks, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 0%, but the description explains that 'platform' is the git provider (github, gitlab) and 'project_id' is the repository ID. This adds meaning beyond the property names and types, though could benefit from more detail on valid values.

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?

The description clearly states it retrieves fork information for a repository, specifying the verb 'get' and resource. The return details add specificity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 'list_forks', although the difference is implied.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_forks' or 'create_fork'. There is no mention of prerequisites or constraints.

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