repo-bridge

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.1
Disambiguation4/5
The tools mostly target distinct operations—workspace management, file operations, command execution, and git actions are clearly separated. However, write_file/edit_file and run_command/run_build/run_tests/run_lint have overlapping capabilities that could cause misselection, though their descriptions and intended use cases mitigate ambiguity.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming follows several conventions: verb-first (read_file, run_build), domain-prefix-first (workspace_open, git_status, bridge_status), and a few irregular names like repo_open_remote and file_info. While each group is internally consistent, the lack of a single predictable pattern makes the full set harder to navigate.
Tool Count3/5
27 tools is a substantial number, but the server's scope spans workspace management, file editing, command execution, and git workflows, so most tools serve a distinct purpose. The count is at the high end but not unreasonable given the breadth; still, it exceeds the typical well-scoped range.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the main workflows: opening and managing workspaces, reading and editing files, running builds/tests/lints, and common git operations (commit, branch, diff, status, log, restore). Minor gaps exist—no explicit push/pull (though repo_open_remote refreshes clones) and no stash or tag operations—but these are workable via run_command or are intentionally restricted.
Average 4.2/5 across 27 of 27 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 10 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 8, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and provides no details about overwrite behavior, failure modes, or return values, leaving the agent to infer mutation semantics.
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?
A single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and efficiently communicates the scope. This is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices depth.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention overwrite semantics, behavior when moving directories, or what the tool returns on success/failure, leaving critical context missing.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, but that is acceptable because the schema already documents every parameter, including the overwrite flag and workspace alias.
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 the action (move or rename) and the resource (file or directory) within the workspace. It is distinct from sibling tools by its verb, but it doesn't explicitly reference alternatives to differentiate.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_path combined with write_file, or how it handles cross-directory moves. The only contextual hint is 'inside the workspace,' which is a scope constraint rather than a usage recommendation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses merge base behavior and stat_only usage, but directly contradicts the schema by claiming 'worktree' is the default while the schema specifies default 'head'. This misleads the agent about the command's default behavior and undermines trust.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the stat_only tip is valuable. The first sentence is dense and contains an awkward parenthetical, making it slightly less crisp, but overall it is efficient and well-structured.
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?
The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the central against options and a recommended workflow, but omits guidance on paths, context_lines, and workspace usage beyond the schema. The default-value error is a notable gap, making the description adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining against semantics and stat_only usage. However, it contains a false claim about the default value for against, which actively misleads parameter selection and lowers the score.
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 states 'Show changes as a unified diff' with a clear verb and resource, and the detailed against options help distinguish it from siblings like git_status and git_log. The core purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use different against values (worktree, staged, head, branch) and explicitly recommends stat_only=true for large changes. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the parameter guidance gives solid context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It reveals ordering ('newest first') and ties to commit history, but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or describe any side effects, which is a minor gap for a git tool.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a practical use case. Every word earns its place.
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 simple read-only log tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides purpose, ordering, and use-case context. It does not describe output format, but the schema and sibling context fill most gaps.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for limit, range, and workspace. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 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?
Description states 'Recent commits, newest first' which identifies the resource (commits) and ordering, and adds the use case of matching commit-message conventions, distinguishing it from sibling git tools like git_diff or git_status. The verb is implied rather than explicit, but purpose is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states 'Useful for matching the project's commit-message conventions before committing', giving a clear when-to-use scenario. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for a focused tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the recursive requirement and the workspace root refusal, but does not explicitly state that deletions are permanent or unrecoverable. This is a notable gap for a destructive tool.
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?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. No redundant information; every sentence adds operational value.
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 the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description covers essential operational details: what can be deleted, how to delete directories, and a safety restriction. It omits explicit mention of irreversibility, but the deletion intent is clear from the name and description.
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 parameters are already documented. The description adds a preference guideline but does not provide new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already describes, such as the recursive default.
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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Delete a file, or a directory tree with recursive=true.' It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like move_path or write_file by specifying the deletion scope and the recursive condition for directories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides direct usage guidance: 'Prefer deleting specific files over directories' and warns that 'Deleting the workspace root is refused.' This helps the agent choose when to use the tool and avoid unsafe usage, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key traits: it checks existence, returns size and modification time, and does not read content. This signals a safe, non-destructive operation. However, it does not specify behavior for nonexistent paths or error handling, which is a minor gap for a file inspection tool.
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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key scoping detail ('without reading it'). No wasted 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 simple metadata tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: existence check, size, modification time, and the fact that content is not read. It does not detail the return structure or error cases, but given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably complete for an agent to select and invoke it.
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%, with 'path' described as 'Path to inspect.' and 'workspace' as 'Workspace alias. Defaults to the active workspace.' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 identifies the tool as a metadata inspection tool: 'Check whether a path exists and get its size and modification time.' The verb 'check' and explicit mention of 'without reading it' distinguish it from siblings like read_file and list_dir, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 phrase 'without reading it' implies usage for metadata-only needs, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are named. The description provides context for when to use (checking existence and metadata) but does not directly contrast with read_file or other siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the protected branch refusal, a useful constraint, and implies mutation via create/switch. But it does not disclose side effects of switching (e.g., working tree changes), failure modes, or output format, leaving gaps.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds valuable workflow context about protected branches without any waste. Every sentence earns its place.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and gives important workflow context. It does not explain return values or edge cases like switching to a nonexistent branch without create=true, so it is not fully complete, but it is above the minimum viable.
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% and every parameter has a description. The tool description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 tool's function: 'List branches, or create / switch to one.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_commit, git_status, and git_log, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear context: 'Creating a feature branch is the normal first step before making changes, since commits to protected branches are refused.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (before making changes) and why. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it misses the 5 threshold.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what information is returned but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation with no side effects, nor does it mention potential performance limitations for large repositories. The description adds some context beyond a bare 'status' but is not fully transparent.
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: the first lists all the contents, the second gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words, information is front-loaded, and the structure is exemplary.
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?
Without an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the return values include (branch, upstream, counts, file states). It does not mention formatting details or edge cases like empty repos, but for a simple status tool with one optional parameter, this is adequate.
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% for the single 'workspace' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 specifically enumerates what the tool returns: current branch, upstream tracking, ahead/behind counts, and staged/unstaged/untracked files. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like git_diff (which shows diffs) and git_log (which shows history), and uses an implicit but obvious 'get status' verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says 'Check this before committing, and to notice user changes you did not make,' which provides explicit usage context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling context makes it clear this is the pre-commit status check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral details: the build command is auto-detected from the repository, and the tool returns exit code and output with error lines preserved even for long logs. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as writing artifact files or requiring specific permissions, which would be relevant for a build operation.
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 two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core function and gives supporting detail about return behavior without unnecessary elaboration.
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 the moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential behavior: what it builds, how the command is determined, and the return format. It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it and side-effect warnings, but these are partly covered in other dimensions.
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?
The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, though it indirectly clarifies the 'command' parameter by mentioning auto-detection. No additional compensation needed.
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 tool's purpose: to build the project using an auto-detected build command. It lists supported ecosystems (Maven, Gradle, npm, etc.), which distinguishes it from generic commands like run_command and related tools like run_tests or run_lint. The verb 'build' and resource 'project' are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when you want to build the project. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to prefer run_command for arbitrary execution. It provides clear context but no exclusions or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the command is auto-detected and names possible linters, which is useful. However, it does not mention output format, side effects, or what happens when no linter is detected, leaving behavioral expectations incomplete.
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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds concrete examples. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.
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 the moderate complexity (5 optional params, no required params, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and detection behavior. It could be more complete by mentioning prerequisites or recommending run_command for arbitrary commands, but it is adequate for guiding an agent.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage of all 5 parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds context about command detection and override behavior but does not add meaningful per-parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 tool runs the project linter/static checks using a command auto-detected from the repository, with a helpful list of examples (eslint, ruff, clippy, go vet, spotless). This distinguishes it from siblings like run_build and run_tests.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly indicates when to use it: to run linting/static checks on a project, as opposed to building or testing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use instructions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (creating directories and parents) but does not mention idempotency, error handling, or what happens if the directory already exists. Adequate for a simple tool but with gaps.
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 sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the action. Every sentence earns its place by conveying purpose and usage context efficiently.
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 simple tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and usage context well. It could mention return values or behavior on existing directories, but these are not critical for a directory creation 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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents path and workspace. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, thus the baseline of 3 applies.
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 tool creates a directory including parents, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from write_file, which already handles parent directory creation, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use this tool (only for empty directories) and names write_file as an alternative that already creates parent directories. This gives clear guidance on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It conveys the basic behavior of matching by name/glob but does not mention key details like recursion scope, default workspace, or result limits. The schema fills some gaps (e.g., path restriction, pattern semantics), but the description adds little beyond that.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Find files') and then provides usage context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?
The tool is relatively simple, and the schema provides detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds enough context for typical usage, though it stops short of explicitly stating the return format or that this is a read-only operation. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to effectively use the tool.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical value by giving glob pattern examples ('**/*Service.java', '**/test_*.py'), which illustrate how the 'patterns' parameter should be formatted—enhancing understanding beyond the schema's dry description.
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 tool's function: 'Find files by name or glob pattern' with concrete examples. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_dir (directory listing) and search_code (content search), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear when-to-use guideline: 'Use when you know roughly what a file is called but not where it lives.' It does not explicitly mention when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important traits: idempotent refresh behavior, isolated workspace per task, and a return value matching workspace_open. However, it omits details like authentication requirements, failure modes, or what exactly triggers a refresh.
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 three sentences that front-load the core purpose, then provide usage context and isolation rationale. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.
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?
The description covers the tool's core function, usage context, and return behavior, while the schema handles parameter details. It is complete for a remote clone tool, though it could elaborate on the refresh trigger and error conditions, but these are not critical.
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?
The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all four parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 tool's function: cloning or refreshing a remote Git repository into an isolated managed workspace and checking out a branch. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying use for repositories not already on this machine, making its purpose distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: for work on a repository that is not already on this machine. It also adds context about per-task isolation for parallel tasks, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool reports (files changed, commands run, git operations, branch/commit state, uncommitted changes) and adds context about its purpose (memory-independent, final report). It doesn't explicitly state that it's read-only, but the aggregating nature and lack of modification verbs make it clear.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and details, followed by a clear directive. No filler or repetition, every sentence earns its place.
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 tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the content scope, purpose, and usage. It doesn't detail return format, but 'summarise' implies a textual report. The description is sufficient for the given complexity and sibling context.
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% (both 'against' and 'workspace' have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't reference the parameters or provide extra context.
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 tool's verb ('Summarise'), the resource ('everything done in this workspace'), and gives specific details (files changed with line counts, commands run with pass/fail, git operations, branch and commit state). It distinguishes itself from sibling git commands (git_status, git_diff, etc.) by being a comprehensive summary tool rather than a raw query.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says to use this 'to write an accurate final report instead of relying on memory' and 'to see what is still uncommitted,' which indicates its primary use cases. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context implies it's the go-to for a high-level report over individual git commands.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two key behaviors: command auto-detection and summarization of failing output with failure lines pulled out. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema, though it omits details like timeout handling or potential side effects.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value: purpose, behavior, and usage context. No fluff.
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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, usage loop, and output behavior. It doesn't explain return format or timeout behavior, but the schema covers parameters and the description provides enough context for a typical test-running workflow.
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 covers 100% of parameters with thorough descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, relying on the schema to document path, target, command, and timeout.
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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('project test suite'), and adds scope by noting command auto-detection. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_build or run_lint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states 'This is the tool to use in an implement → test → fix loop', providing clear situational guidance. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful traits: returning file:line locations, supporting literal/regex and glob filters, providing context lines, and respecting .gitignore. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the search semantics imply no mutation, and the additional context makes the behavior fairly transparent.
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 sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose and output, then adds a usage hint, capabilities, and behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place, achieving high information density in a compact structure.
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 the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the return format (file:line locations) and key behaviors (filters, context, .gitignore). It does not mention limits like max_results or potential truncation, but those are documented in the schema. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively.
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?
The schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the pattern can be literal or regex and mentions glob filters and context lines, but these map directly to existing schema descriptions. It adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already 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 defines the verb ('Search'), resource ('file contents across the repository'), and output ('return matching lines with file:line locations'). It also distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it searches file contents rather than filenames and states it is the 'primary way to find code.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: 'This is the primary way to find code — far cheaper than reading files.' This implies it should be used instead of reading files for code search, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools like find_files or state exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals that the tool returns a cached state ('without re-reading the repository') and includes session-specific changes ('everything this bridge session has already changed'), which are important non-obvious traits. It does not mention whether it is read-only, but the passive phrasing implies it is.
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 two sentences: the first concisely defines what the tool returns, the second provides the intended use case. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully captures what the tool returns, highlights its key advantage (cached state), and gives a practical instruction for when to use it. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The schema fully documents the single optional 'workspace' parameter (alias, defaults to active workspace), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score 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 defines the tool's function as providing the current state of a workspace, listing specific content areas (branch, working-tree changes, recent commits, detected commands, session changes). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like git_status or git_log by emphasizing it summarizes everything without re-reading the repository.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives an explicit use case: 'Use this to resume work' with a concrete example ('continue on quantix'). It implies when to use this instead of re-reading files or running individual git commands, but does not name specific alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's informational content (permissions, capabilities, limits, branches, token config), implying a read-only status check. It does not explicitly state side effects or read-only nature, but for a status tool, this is sufficiently transparent.
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 a compact two-sentence structure. The first sentence enumerates the tool's outputs in a clear list, and the second adds crucial usage context. Every word contributes, with no filler or repetition of schema details.
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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers its content and appropriate usage scenarios. It could be more complete by explicitly stating it is read-only, but the listed items already imply that, and the guidance covers the main contexts.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly explains what the tool returns without needing to explain any inputs.
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 identifies the tool as a bridge status/configuration inspector, specifying in detail what it reports: permission level, enabled capabilities, allowed executables, timeouts, output limits, protected branches, and token configuration. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which focus on workspace, files, Git operations, or commands.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Check this when a tool is refused, or before planning work that needs to push.' It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the two scenarios are clear and practical for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses important behaviors: default staging of all modified/untracked files, refusal on protected branches, and the expectation that messages match repo style. While it does not mention return values or failure modes like empty commits, the provided behaviors are substantive and useful.
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?
Three concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action and default behavior, safety condition and remedy, and style guidance. No unnecessary words, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action.
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?
The description is compact but covers the primary action, default behavior, a restrictive condition, and a style directive. It complements the schema and sibling suggestions well. Missing details like whether the commit is pushed or how empty commits are handled are not critical for a standard git commit tool.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the `paths` parameter's behavior ('pass `paths` to commit a subset') and adds fresh guidance for `message` ('Write the message in the style of the repository's recent commits'), linking to git_log. This adds value beyond the schema.
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 opens with 'Stage and commit changes,' a specific verb+resource that clearly identifies a git commit operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like git_status and git_log by focusing on the commit action and adding behavioral details like default staging and protected-branch refusal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states when to use it for a subset of files ('pass `paths` to commit a subset') and gives a clear condition: 'Refuses to commit on a protected branch — create a feature branch first,' implicitly directing to git_branch. It also points to git_log for message style. However, it does not explicitly contrast with git_status or git_restore for reviewing or unstaging changes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds important context that 'Build outputs, node_modules and .git are skipped automatically,' which is not obvious from the name or schema. However, it does not mention the output format or whether paths are relative to workspace, but the main behavioral quirk is covered.
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 sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence states the action, the second explains when to use it and mentions key exclusions, and the third gives a tool-selection hint. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The tool has five optional parameters and no output schema, so the description needs to cover essential context. It does: purpose, usage scenario, automatic skips, and an alternative tool. It omits details about the return format, but for a simple directory listing, this is sufficient.
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 the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's function as 'List files and directories' and adds a specific usage context ('for orientation in an unfamiliar area of the repo'). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool search_code by advising to prefer it for specific lookups, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear when-to-use scenario: 'Use for orientation in an unfamiliar area of the repo.' It also provides an explicit alternative by saying 'Prefer search_code when you are looking for something specific,' which guides tool selection effectively.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Never deletes a local workspace's files' and explains the delete_files option for managed workspaces. This discloses the main side-effect and safety boundary, though it stops short of clarifying reversibility or the exact state after closing.
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?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and no redundancy. Every sentence adds value: the core action, the delete option, and the safety guarantee.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and key edge case (local vs managed). It could mention that a workspace can be reopened via workspace_open, but this is not critical for execution correctness.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that delete_files is for 'managed (cloned) workspaces' and that local files are never deleted, which enriches the parameter semantics and the 'workspace' parameter's meaning.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Stop tracking a workspace') that clearly distinguishes it from sibling workspace tools like workspace_open or workspace_info. It immediately conveys the core action and its scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (stopping tracking) and the key distinction between managed and local workspaces. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the guidance is sufficient for typical selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool lists repositories the bridge can open and reports the active one, implying a read-only operation. It adds useful context about the 'can open' constraint, which clarifies the scope beyond the generic 'workspace_list' name. It does not mention side effects, but none are expected for a list operation.
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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose and the tool name is not redundantly repeated.
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?
The tool is simple (zero params, no output schema) and the description adequately explains what it returns: a list of openable repositories and the currently active one. It also provides sequencing context ('call this first'). While it doesn't define output format, for a simple list operation this is sufficient.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior because there are none. It correctly focuses on what the tool returns and when to use it.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'repositories the bridge can open' and adds the active one, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like workspace_open or workspace_close. It also references the 'bridge' context, making the scope unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use: 'Call this first when you do not know what is available.' This gives a clear invocation context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. The 'first' directive implies a sequencing guideline relative to other workspace operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool 'destroys uncommitted work', requires confirm=true, and 'will never discard everything at once'. This goes beyond basic safety to give behavioral guarantees, which is excellent transparency.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a concise safety warning. It is extremely concise with no wasted words, perfectly sized for an MCP tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation, the description is complete: it covers purpose, the destructive nature, the required confirm flag, path restrictions, and the guarantee of limited scope. The schema fully documents all parameters, so no additional parameter context is needed. Despite no output schema, the description provides enough context for safe invocation.
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%, with all four parameters having clear descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra parametric meaning, only reiterating that confirm is required and paths must be specified, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's function: 'Discard changes to specific files, or unstage them.' This uses specific verbs (discard/unstage) and a clear resource (file changes), distinguishing it from sibling tools like git_commit, git_diff, and git_status. The additional safety clause about never discarding everything at once further clarifies its scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (discarding or unstaging changes) and critically warns that it 'destroys uncommitted work' and requires confirm=true with specific paths. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks that explicit exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses a key side effect ('Makes the workspace active for subsequent tool calls') and describes the returned project brief in detail. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but that is not critical for an open operation.
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 sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action and outcome, and every sentence contributes useful information. There is no redundancy or filler, making it dense and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a single parameter and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It enumerates the return content, input constraints, and activation side effect, making the tool's behavior complete and self-contained.
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?
The schema already documents the single 'path' parameter with examples, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds valuable semantics: the path can be an alias from workspace_list or an absolute path inside a configured root, clarifying the acceptable input sources beyond the schema's basic type description.
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 identifies the action ('Open a local repository') and the resource ('a local repository'), and specifies the rich return payload (languages, build system, commands, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like workspace_list and repo_open_remote by emphasizing local repository opening and activation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it accepts an alias from workspace_list or an absolute path within a configured root, and makes the workspace active for subsequent calls. It does not explicitly list exclusions or name alternative tools for when not to use it, but the usage context is well implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the three operation modes (create, replace, append) and implies that write_file rewrites the whole file by contrasting it with 'edit_file' as 'safer and much cheaper'. It does not dwell on destructive details, but the schema's mode enum covers the specifics.
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 consists of two tight sentences. It is front-loaded with the core action, includes an explicit usage restriction, and names an alternative tool — all without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complete parameter schema and the focused description, the agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly. The description covers usage context and sibling differentiation, and the schema explains mode, path, content, and workspace. No output schema is required.
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% and each parameter is fully described (mode defaults/fail behavior, path resolution, content meaning, workspace default). The description itself adds no parameter-specific insights, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's function: 'Create a new file, or replace / append to an existing one.' It identifies the specific verb and resource, and explicitly scopes usage to 'NEW files', distinguishing it from the sibling tool edit_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for NEW files.' It also gives an exclusion and names an alternative: 'To change part of an existing file use edit_file instead — it is safer and much cheaper.' This is a textbook example of usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key traits: atomic application of edits, the failure behavior ('file is left untouched and you are told why'), and the uniqueness constraint on old_string. This goes beyond the schema and provides valuable safety information.
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 sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It conveys purpose, constraints, and preferred usage without any fluff or redundancy.
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?
The description is fairly complete given the tool's simplicity and absence of an output schema. It covers the editing behavior, atomicity, and failure feedback. It does not describe success return values, but for an edit tool this is implicit. Minor gaps like workspace defaulting are covered by the schema.
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?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches parameter semantics by explaining the uniqueness requirement for old_string, the disambiguation technique of including surrounding lines, and the atomic behavior across multiple edits. It adds constraint-level meaning that the schema alone does not convey.
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 tool's purpose: 'Make targeted edits to an existing file by replacing exact text.' It uses a specific verb+resource+method structure and distinguishes itself from alternatives by labeling it 'the preferred way to modify code.' This clearly separates it from sibling tools like write_file or move_path.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool ('preferred way to modify code') and gives specific usage guidance such as 'old_string must appear exactly once' and 'include surrounding lines to disambiguate.' However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for full-file rewrites), so it lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: returns exact content without line numbers by default, and never returns credential files. This adds meaningful safety and usage context beyond what a plain 'read file' description would provide.
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 a compact three-sentence structure that front-loads the primary purpose, then adds guidance and caveats. Every sentence provides distinct, necessary value with no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no output schema, the description clearly states the return type ('text' and 'exact file content'), includes default behavior (no line numbers), and covers file size handling and security exclusions. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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?
The schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking start_line/end_line to large-file scenarios and warning against copying line_numbered output into edit_file, which enriches the schema's bare definitions.
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 begins with 'Read a file as text', a specific verb and resource that clearly states the tool's function. It further distinguishes from siblings by mentioning exact content for edit_file anchors and search_code for locating regions, clarifying its unique role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly explains when to use this tool (for copying verbatim into edit_file) and provides guidance for large files (use start_line/end_line or search_code first). It also gives a clear exclusion (credential files are never returned), guiding appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses critical behavioral traits: commands run without a shell (pipes, redirects, && and ; are rejected), only allowlisted executables are permitted, and destructive commands require confirm=true. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent essential safety and execution context, covering the burden that annotations would normally carry.
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 sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose, then key constraints, and finally sibling-tool guidance. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy, delivering a high information density in a compact form.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity and the lack of an output schema, the description covers all necessary operational context: what it does, how it differs from siblings, execution limitations, security/allowlisting, and the confirm requirement. No significant gaps are apparent for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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?
Although the schema already describes all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the command parameter is not shell-interpreted, which is crucial for constructing valid calls. It also reinforces the confirm parameter's role for destructive commands. This extra context compensates for any potential misunderstanding from the schema alone.
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 'Run a development command in the workspace' and enumerates the tool categories (build tools, package managers, test runners, git, language toolchains). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_build, run_tests, and run_lint by naming them as project-specific alternatives, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance: 'Prefer run_build / run_tests / run_lint' for automatic project-specific commands, and it states when to use this tool for general development commands. It also gives key usage constraints (no shell, allowlist, confirm for destructive) that help the agent decide if this tool is appropriate or if alternatives should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![repo-bridge MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zcrossoverz/repo-bridge/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zcrossoverz/repo-bridge)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![repo-bridge MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zcrossoverz/repo-bridge/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zcrossoverz/repo-bridge)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/zcrossoverz/repo-bridge'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server