Skip to main content
Glama

ctx

by io.github.vanshulgoyal101

list_files

List the text files ctx would include for a repository (after stripping binaries, lockfiles and build dirs), with their byte sizes. Cheap way for an agent to see the layout before packing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refNoOptional branch, tag or commit SHA (defaults to the default branch).
repoYesA GitHub repo as "owner/repo" or a github.com URL.
excludeNoOptional glob patterns (support **, *, ?).
includeNoOptional glob patterns (support **, *, ?).

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the filtering behavior (stripping binaries, lockfiles, build dirs) and notes it's 'cheap' (performance). It doesn't explicitly say it's read-only, but that's implied. This adds value beyond the schema.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states the core function and key behavior, the second adds usage context. Every word earns its place, and the main verb 'List' is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description mentions 'with their byte sizes' to indicate the return shape. It also gives usage context (before packing). Could be more explicit about the exact response format, but it's complete enough for a simple listing tool.

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 is 3. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but it does contextualize why filtering happens (inclusion/exclusion) indirectly. No additional semantics needed.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List the text files ctx would include for a repository' with specifics like stripping binaries/lockfiles/build dirs. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_file (single file) and pack_repo (packing), making it a distinct listing/preview tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear context: 'Cheap way for an agent to see the layout before packing.' This tells the agent when to use it (before packing), but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Still, the context is strong enough for selection.

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

All ctx toolsInspect
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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources