Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GitFlic MCP Server

GitFlic MCP Server

by zhimbura
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

gitflic_blob_files

Read-only

List files in a GitFlic repository, optionally under a sub-path, branch, or selected fields, to browse project structure before reading or editing code.

Instructions

List files in the repo (optionally under a sub-path).

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": {
      "project": "<project>"
    },
    "name": "gitflic_blob_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rawNoReturn the full, un-slimmed GitFlic response for THIS call (no token compression). Use when the default slim view dropped a field you need.
pathNoSub-path, e.g. 'lib/cmd'
branchNo
fieldsNoReturn only these top-level fields (plus id keys), narrowing the response further.
projectYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on pagination, ordering, whether branch defaults to the default branch, or what the slim/raw response distinction means in practice.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, and the optional scope qualifier is placed where it is immediately readable. Brevity here is efficient rather than padded.

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?

With five parameters, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, a one-line description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what a listing entry looks like, how branches are resolved, or how raw/fields interact with the default slim view.

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 only 60%: path, raw and fields carry descriptions, but project and branch do not. The description only restates the optional sub-path already documented in the schema and gives no meaning for branch (e.g. default branch behavior) or project (e.g. owner/repo slug format).

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ("List files in the repo") plus the scope modifier (optionally under a sub-path), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as gitflic_blob_get or gitflic_commit_files, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to prefer this listing over gitflic_commit_files or gitflic_blob_get, nor whether branch selection is required. The parenthetical only clarifies scope, not usage decisions.

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