Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Git MCP Server

Git MCP Server

by yumeminami
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_forks

Retrieve a list of forks for a repository on GitHub or GitLab by specifying the platform and project ID.

Instructions

List forks of a repository

Args: platform: The platform name (github, gitlab) project_id: The repository ID to list forks for limit: Maximum number of forks to return

Returns: List of fork repositories

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": "list_forks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
platformYes
project_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.5

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose that the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The return type is mentioned but not behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise, using a clear docstring format with separate sections for description, args, and returns. Every sentence serves a purpose with no 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?

For a simple list operation, the description covers the main purpose, parameters, and return type. However, it omits behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, pagination) and usage guidance, which would be needed for full completeness given the lack of annotations.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains each parameter's role: platform as platform name (github, gitlab), project_id as repository ID, limit as maximum number of forks. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's types and defaults.

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 explicitly states 'List forks of a repository', using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_fork and get_fork_info.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It merely describes the operation without contextual usage advice.

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