List the directory tree of a specific path in a repository with customizable depth and traversal limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Full name of the repository (owner/name) | |
| maxDepth | No | Maximum depth into the directory structure to list. | |
| maxPerDir | No | Maximum number of items to display per directory level. | |
| targetDir | No | Target directory path to inspect. Leaves empty to search from root. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / name / patternAdded value: +"^[a-zA-Z0-9_.-]+\\/[a-zA-Z0-9_.-]+$"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions customizable depth and traversal limits, giving some behavioral context. However, it does not specify whether the listing includes files, only directories, or the structure of the output, which is important for a tool without an output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 17 words, very concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core purpose but could benefit from a second sentence to add usage or behavioral details without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., does it show files? truncated output?), which is critical for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage for parameters, so the description adds no new meaning beyond restating that depth and traversal limits are customizable. It does not provide additional context or examples that would enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists the directory tree of a specific path in a repository, with customizable depth and traversal limits. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_code and search_code by focusing on directory structure listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It does not mention scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: listing directory trees, reading source code, searching code, searching repositories, and viewing repository info. No overlaps.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_tree, read_code, search_code, search_repos, view_repo), making them predictable.
With 5 tools, the server is appropriately scoped for code reading and searching tasks, neither too sparse nor overloaded.
Covers key read operations like directory listing, code retrieval, code search, repo search, and repo info. Minor gaps: no file metadata or commit history, but core functionality is solid.