github_repo$0.005 per call — GitHub repo snapshot: stars, forks, open-issue count, watchers, primary language, SPDX license, created/pushed dates and latest release tag. Use to triage a repo before contributing or depending on it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | owner/name, URL also accepted |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / qRemoved value: -{
- "description": "JSON or key=value input for the tool",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / repoAdded value: +{
+ "description": "owner/name, URL also accepted",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "repo"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the cost per call and the returned fields, but omits authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, and whether private repositories are supported. These gaps leave meaningful uncertainty for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.
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?
Two tight sentences: the first front-loads cost and return fields, the second states the use case. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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?
The tool is simple, schema coverage is complete, and the description compensates for the absent output schema by listing the returned fields. It still lacks operational details like auth and rate limits, but for a read-only public-data lookup this is largely sufficient.
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% for the single 'repo' parameter, and the schema already documents that it accepts 'owner/name' or a URL. The description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 names a specific resource ('GitHub repo snapshot') and enumerates the exact fields returned, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling repo_diligence, which may offer overlapping or deeper analysis, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
It gives a clear use case: 'Use to triage a repo before contributing or depending on it.' This tells the agent when to reach for the tool. However, it offers no exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when to use repo_diligence instead), so it is not fully prescriptive.
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.