get_githubShows whether this account has a GitHub repo connected, or lists files under a path in that repo. If not connected, the result includes installUrl — open it (GitHub App) to grant read access to one repo. Sign in on botkelp.com with GitHub first so the install is tied to your account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Folder or file in the connected repo to list. Omit for connection status. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an installUrl when not connected, requires prior sign-in on botkelp.com, and implies a read-only operation (no side effects mentioned). It does not cover edge cases like invalid paths or rate limits, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the conditional behavior, then the prerequisite. Every sentence adds necessary information with no fluff. It is efficient and well organized.
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 read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main scenarios: connection status, file listing, and the install flow when not connected. It mentions the installUrl and the sign-in prerequisite. Missing details like error handling or pagination are not critical for such a tool. The presence of set_github as a sibling provides clear context for what this tool does not do.
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 single parameter 'path' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) as 'Folder or file in the connected repo to list. Omit for connection status.' The description adds minimal extra context by restating 'lists files under a path', which does not go beyond the schema. Thus, the description adds little semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states a clear dual purpose: showing whether a GitHub repo is connected and optionally listing files under a given path. It also mentions the installUrl behavior, which differentiates it from other get_* tools that focus on different resources. The verb 'shows' and 'lists' are specific.
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 implies usage by stating what it does, but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like set_github. It does provide conditional guidance (if not connected, use installUrl) and a prerequisite (sign in first), but lacks explicit 'use this when' or 'use set_github when' instructions. The context is adequate but not fully explicit.
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.