Skip to main content
Glama

Github

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get User

get_user
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a GitHub user's public profile info. Returns name, bio, company, location, public repo count, followers, and social links. Specify username (e.g., username="torvalds").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usernameYesGitHub username, e.g. "torvalds"

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bioYesUser's bio
urlYesUser's GitHub profile URL
blogYesUser's blog URL
nameYesUser's display name
typeYesUser type (User/Organization)
emailYesUser's public email
loginYesGitHub username
companyYesUser's company
twitterYesUser's Twitter username
locationYesUser's location
followersYesNumber of followers
followingYesNumber of accounts following
avatar_urlYesUser's avatar URL
created_atYesAccount creation timestamp
updated_atYesLast update timestamp
public_gistsYesNumber of public gists
public_reposYesNumber of public repositories

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the specific fields returned and an example of the username parameter, which is context beyond annotations.

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 concise two-sentence structure that front-loads the purpose, lists key return data, and gives a usage example. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a rich output schema, detailed annotations, and a single well-documented parameter, the description is sufficient. It covers the essential purpose, return fields, and parameter example, leaving no ambiguity.

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 already describes the username parameter with a GitHub username example and covers 100% of parameters. The description's example ('username="torvalds"') mirrors the schema, adding no new semantics beyond what's already documented.

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 explicitly states 'Get a GitHub user's public profile info' with a list of returned fields, clearly specifying the verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_repo or get_releases.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on when to use this tool—when a GitHub user's public profile is needed. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous, and no exclusions are needed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Github toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs. get_repo vs. validate_claim), but there is some overlap between ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, and between bet_research and polymarket_edges. Overall, an agent can generally distinguish them.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names lack a consistent pattern: some are verb_noun (search_repos, get_user), others are noun_verb (entity_profile), and many are compound descriptor phrases (polymarket_arbitrage, scan_dependency). This mixed convention makes the set feel disjointed.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is excessive for a server named 'Github', especially since many tools (e.g., ai_visibility_check, bet_research) are unrelated to GitHub functionality. The count would be appropriate for a broader 'Pipeworx' server but not for a focused GitHub server.

Completeness2/5

The GitHub-relevant tools are limited to read-only operations (get_repo, list_commits, etc.), lacking essential actions like creating/updating repos, issues, or pull requests. The inclusion of numerous non-GitHub tools does not compensate for these gaps.

Resources