GitHub public profile — login, type User|Organization, email when public, followers (1 credit). Costs 1 credit. Empty results and failures are never charged. Pass cache=true for a free 24h cache hit (default always fresh).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cache | No | Set true to serve from the 24h response cache (0 credits on hit). Default false — always fetch fresh. | |
| username | Yes | GitHub username or profile URL, e.g. getify or https://github.com/getify. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / cache / descriptionPrevious value: -"Set true to serve from the 24h response cache (0 credits on hit). Default false — always fetch fresh. Envelope includes cached + cachedAt on hits."New value: +"Set true to serve from the 24h response cache (0 credits on hit). Default false — always fetch fresh."Input schema / properties / cache / descriptionPrevious value: -"Set true to serve from the 24h response cache. Default false — always fetch fresh data."New value: +"Set true to serve from the 24h response cache (0 credits on hit). Default false — always fetch fresh. Envelope includes cached + cachedAt on hits."Input schema / properties / username / descriptionPrevious value: -"GitHub username or profile URL, e.g. getify."New value: +"GitHub username or profile URL, e.g. getify or https://github.com/getify."Input schema / properties / username / descriptionPrevious value: -"GitHub username or profile URL."New value: +"GitHub username or profile URL, e.g. getify."Input schema / properties / cache / descriptionPrevious value: -"Responses are cached for 24 hours by default. Set false to bypass the cache and always fetch fresh data (default true)."New value: +"Set true to serve from the 24h response cache. Default false — always fetch fresh data."Input schema / properties / cacheAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Responses are cached for 24 hours by default. Set false to bypass the cache and always fetch fresh data (default true).",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses genuinely useful behaviors beyond the schema: the 1-credit cost, that empty results and failures are never charged, and the 24h cache semantics with default-always-fresh. Rate limits and error handling are not covered, but the cost/cache/billing disclosure is substantive and well beyond what structured fields provide.
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?
Four compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. Minor redundancy: '1 credit' appears in both the first sentence ('followers (1 credit)') and the second sentence ('Costs 1 credit'), which is the only wasted increment.
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 2-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core facts needed to invoke it correctly: returned fields, cost, cache behavior, and the billing-on-failure policy. Missing only explicit sibling routing and error behavior details, which are minor for a simple profile fetch.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cost context to cache=true (free on hit, fresh by default) that goes slightly beyond the schema's cache description, but it adds nothing material for username beyond what the schema already provides ('GitHub username or profile URL'). The schema does the heavy lifting here.
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 specific resource (GitHub public profile) and enumerates the returned fields (login, type User|Organization, email when public, followers), which distinguishes it from sibling GitHub tools like github_followers, github_repositories, and github_activity. An agent can infer what data it returns without opening the schema.
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 field listing implies when to use this tool — when a user's profile identity, type, email, or follower count is needed — but it never names an alternative or states exclusions. With many github_* siblings present, explicit routing guidance would materially help selection, so the guidance stays at the implied level.
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.