Return the full text of a single file in a repository, by path. Use after list_files or search_context to drill in.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Optional branch, tag or commit SHA (defaults to the default branch). | |
| path | Yes | File path within the repo. | |
| repo | Yes | A GitHub repo as "owner/repo" or a github.com URL. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it returns full text and works by path, which conveys the basic behavior, but it does not mention error handling, binary file behavior, or access/auth considerations. This is adequate but lacks richer context.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the primary behavior and provides a usage hint. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.
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?
For a simple single-file retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage flow. It could add details about failure modes or response format, but given the low complexity and complete parameter schema, it is nearly sufficient.
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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (repo, path, ref) with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter-level nuance beyond what the schema states, so it is at the baseline for schema-heavy cases.
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 'Return the full text of a single file in a repository, by path' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like list_files (listing) and search_context (searching). It makes the tool's core function immediately understandable.
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?
'Use after list_files or search_context to drill in' provides clear sequential context for when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for other cases, but the usage context is unmistakable.
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 distinct purpose: get_file for a single file, list_files for repo layout, pack_repo for full repo context, search_context for targeted repo queries, and similarly pack_docs/search_docs for documentation. There is no overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tool names follow a verb_noun pattern (get_file, list_files, pack_docs, pack_repo, search_context, search_docs). The only minor inconsistency is 'search_context' versus 'search_docs'; 'context' is slightly less clear than would be 'search_repo', but the pattern is otherwise consistent.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped. Each tool covers a core operation (file access, listing, packing, searching) for two domains (repo and docs). The count feels right for the server's purpose.
The tool surface fully covers the domain of context retrieval: you can list files, get a file, pack a repo or docs site, and search for specific passages. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose of packing and searching code and documentation.