Repology

Projects Search

projects_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Paginate or filter Repology projects by name substring, maintainer, category, or repository membership; returns up to 200 project names per page with their per-repo version data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No	1-200 (default 50).
`search`	No	Substring match on project name.
`in_repo`	No	Restrict to one repo, e.g. "alpine_edge".
`category`	No
`end_name`	No	Pagination cursor — project name to end at (reverse).
`maintainer`	No
`start_name`	No	Pagination cursor — project name to start at.
`not_in_repo`	No	Exclude one repo.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	Yes	Number of items returned.
`items`	Yes	Paginated list of projects matching search criteria

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed2 schema fields changedMay 27, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "search": "python"
+  },
+  {
+    "count": 30,
+    "in_repo": "alpine_edge"
+  }
+]

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "description": "Number of items returned.",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "items": {
+      "description": "Paginated list of projects matching search criteria",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "latest_version": {
+            "description": "Latest available version",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "description": "Project name",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "repos": {
+            "description": "Repositories containing this project",
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "description": "Overall project status",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "items",
+    "count"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide safety and idempotency hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context by noting the 200-project page limit, the per-repo version data in the response, and the pagination concept (start_name/end_name). This goes beyond what annotations convey, though it does not detail pagination mechanics fully.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, lists filters concisely, and specifies the output limit and content. Every word earns its place with no repetition 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?

Given the existence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential functionality: filtering, pagination, and return data. It does not explain pagination cursor usage or edge cases, but those are partially documented in the input schema, so the description is adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 75% with 'category' and 'maintainer' lacking descriptions, but the description mentions these as filter types, compensating for that gap. It also clarifies the meaning of 'count' implicitly through the 200-per-page limit and the return format, adding value beyond the schema fields.

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 starts with specific verbs 'Paginate or filter' and identifies the resource (Repology projects) along with the filtering criteria (name substring, maintainer, category, repository membership). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'project' (singular) by focusing on search/pagination over multiple projects.

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 description clearly implies when to use the tool (for searching/filtering projects) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions. There is no 'use this instead of X' guidance, which would help an agent choose among siblings like 'maintainer' or 'project'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Repology tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

There is notable overlap among the ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and among the prediction market tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread). While descriptions differentiate them, agents may struggle to choose the appropriate one without careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), but the Repology-specific tools break this pattern with simple nouns like maintainer, problems, project, and repositories. This inconsistency makes the overall naming feel mixed.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the set is too large for a server focused on Repology package queries. Many tools are from the Pipeworx platform and include redundant variants (e.g., ask_pipeworx_beta, polymarket_edge_tracker), inflating the count without adding substantial new functionality.

Completeness2/5

For a server named Repology, the tool surface is severely incomplete: it lacks fundamental Repology operations like detailed package comparisons, version history exploration, and repository-specific queries. Even as a general data platform, there are gaps such as no batch export or aggregate statistics.

Projects Search

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources