view_repo
View repository basic information and its directory structure. Includes corresponding documentation repo if available.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Full name of the repository (owner/name) |
gread
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Changed1 schema field changed
- added
Input schema / properties / name / patternAdded value: +"^[a-zA-Z0-9_.-]+\\/[a-zA-Z0-9_.-]+$"
- First observed
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions inclusion of documentation repo but lacks details on read-only nature, permissions, error handling, or side effects. More transparency needed.
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?
Two concise sentences that efficiently convey purpose and a key behavioral trait. No unnecessary words.
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?
Adequate for a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, but could be more specific about what 'basic information' includes and what the directory structure output looks like.
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 baseline 3. Tool description does not add any additional meaning 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?
Description clearly states verb 'View' and resources 'repository basic information' and 'directory structure', and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning documentation repo inclusion.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_tree or search_repos. The description does not provide any usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: listing directory trees, reading source code, searching code, searching repositories, and viewing repository info. No overlaps.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_tree, read_code, search_code, search_repos, view_repo), making them predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, the server is appropriately scoped for code reading and searching tasks, neither too sparse nor overloaded.
Completeness4/5
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.