Skip to main content
Glama

Github

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Github Trending Repos

github_trending_repos
Read-onlyIdempotent

Trending GitHub repositories — what is hot, popular, and taking off on GitHub right now. Answers "what are the top trending GitHub repos this week", "what is hot on GitHub today", "popular new repositories this month", "trending Rust / Python / AI projects", "which GitHub projects blew up recently". Two modes: mode="new" (default) ranks repositories CREATED inside the time window by star count — the projects that blew up this week — and mode="active" ranks repositories PUSHED inside the window by star count, surfacing established projects under heavy development. Set the window with since (day, week, or month), filter with language, add free-text query keywords such as "llm" or "agent", and raise a min_stars floor. Returns full_name, description, language, stars, forks, created and pushed dates, topics, and URL per repo. Computed live from the GitHub Search API; github.com/trending ranks by stars GAINED during the period using an unpublished algorithm that the public API keeps private, so ordering differs and every response says so in its caveat field.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoWhich window the date applies to: "new" (default) = repos CREATED in the window, ranked by stars — closest to "what blew up this week". "active" = repos PUSHED in the window, ranked by stars — big projects with recent commits.
limitNoNumber of repos to return (default 10, max 30).
queryNoOptional free-text keywords to narrow the topic, e.g. "llm", "agent framework", "kubernetes".
sinceNoTime window: "day" (last 24h), "week" (last 7 days, default), or "month" (last 30 days).
languageNoOptional primary language filter, e.g. "python", "rust", "typescript".
min_starsNoOptional minimum star count. Useful with mode="active" to skip small repos.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context by revealing that it is computed live from the GitHub Search API, that ordering differs from github.com/trending due to an unpublished algorithm, and that every response includes a caveat field. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, then expands into modes, parameters, and the caveat. It is mildly verbose with the list of example questions and some repetitive phrasing, but every section earns its place given the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining return values and does so explicitly by listing full_name, description, language, stars, forks, dates, topics, and URL. It also covers the live computation and the caveat field, making it complete for a six-parameter, mode-based tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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 significantly enriches parameter understanding, particularly for mode (explaining the nuanced difference between creation and push windows) and min_stars (noting its value with mode='active'). It also clarifies query as free-text, going beyond the terse schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as listing trending GitHub repositories, with vivid example queries and a clear distinction from github.com/trending. It goes beyond a generic verb+resource by detailing two modes and their semantics, setting it apart from sibling search tools.

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 explains when to use each mode (new for 'what blew up this week', active for 'established projects under heavy development') and gives practical guidance on setting since, language, query, and min_stars. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like search_repos, so it misses the 'when-not-to-use' component for a 5.

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