search_repos
Search for GitHub repositories by name, description, or topic keywords using the GitHub Search API.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Keyword to search in repository names, descriptions, or topics |
gread
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions using the GitHub Search API but fails to disclose key behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination, result limits, or whether results are sorted, which are critical for agent invocation.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every element serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps about response format, pagination, and result sorting. It does not fully prepare an agent for invocation.
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% (one parameter documented in schema). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter description, meeting the baseline of 3 but not exceeding it.
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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'GitHub repositories'. It specifies searchable fields (name, description, topics) and the underlying API, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_code or view_repo.
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 implies usage for searching repositories by name, description, or topics, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_code, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: listing directory trees, reading source code, searching code, searching repositories, and viewing repository info. No overlaps.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_tree, read_code, search_code, search_repos, view_repo), making them predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, the server is appropriately scoped for code reading and searching tasks, neither too sparse nor overloaded.
Completeness4/5
Covers key read operations like directory listing, code retrieval, code search, repo search, and repo info. Minor gaps: no file metadata or commit history, but core functionality is solid.