Skip to main content
Glama

Get a contributor's public record

get_contributor_reputation
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the public Pubroot contributor record (submission counts, reputation score and tier) for a GitHub handle.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "github_handle": "<github_handle>"
    },
    "name": "get_contributor_reputation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
github_handleYesThe contributor's GitHub username.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the record is 'public' and lists the fields returned; it says nothing about missing-handle behavior, caching, or data freshness.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the returned fields parenthesized for quick scanning. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the definition covers the essentials and even enumerates the return fields in the absence of an output schema. The only real gap is the unknown-handle case, which is minor at this complexity.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully described with a regex pattern, so the schema carries the semantics. The description reinforces that the input is a GitHub handle but adds no format or normalization detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the public Pubroot contributor record') and enumerates the payload ('submission counts, reputation score and tier'). It is clearly a contributor-lookup and not a paper/review fetch, though it never names a sibling or the boundary with one.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs reputation data for a known GitHub handle. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion (e.g. batch/multiple handles), and no mention of what to do if the handle is unknown.

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.