Skip to main content
Glama

Github_private

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Gh Get Repo

gh_get_repo
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get detailed info for a specific repository. Returns description, language, stars, forks, open issues, default branch, and access level.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesRepository name
ownerYesRepository owner

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoRepository ID
nameNoRepository name
ownerNo
privateNoWhether repository is private
html_urlNoRepository web URL
languageNoPrimary programming language
full_nameNoFull repository name (owner/repo)
pushed_atNoISO timestamp of last push
updated_atNoISO timestamp of last update
descriptionNoRepository description
forks_countNoNumber of forks
permissionsNo
default_branchNoDefault branch name
stargazers_countNoNumber of stars
open_issues_countNoNumber of open issues

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "default_branch": {
+      "description": "Default branch name",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "description": {
+      "description": "Repository description",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "forks_count": {
+      "description": "Number of forks",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "full_name": {
+      "description": "Full repository name (owner/repo)",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "html_url": {
+      "description": "Repository web URL",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "description": "Repository ID",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "language": {
+      "description": "Primary programming language",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "description": "Repository name",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "open_issues_count": {
+      "description": "Number of open issues",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "owner": {
+      "properties": {
+        "avatar_url": {
+          "description": "Owner avatar URL",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "id": {
+          "description": "Owner ID",
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "login": {
+          "description": "Owner login",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "url": {
+          "description": "Owner API URL",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "permissions": {
+      "properties": {
+        "admin": {
+          "description": "Admin access",
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "pull": {
+          "description": "Pull access",
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "push": {
+          "description": "Push access",
+          "type": "boolean"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "private": {
+      "description": "Whether repository is private",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "pushed_at": {
+      "description": "ISO timestamp of last push",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "stargazers_count": {
+      "description": "Number of stars",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "updated_at": {
+      "description": "ISO timestamp of last update",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "owner": "octocat",
+    "repo": "Hello-World"
+  }
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields (description, language, stars, forks, open issues, default branch, access level), which is useful context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or auth.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a list of return fields. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is a simple read operation with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema. The description provides enough detail for the agent to select and invoke it correctly, and it aligns with sibling tool boundaries.

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?

The schema fully documents the two parameters (owner, repo) with descriptions. The tool description adds no further parameter detail, but the baseline is 3 given high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get detailed info') and the specific resource ('for a specific repository'), and lists key return fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like gh_list_repos, which enumerate repositories.

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 implies usage for a specific repository, contrasting with list-type siblings, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to choose this tool over gh_list_repos when a single repo's details 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_private 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There is significant overlap among many tools: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all serve query-answer purposes with subtle differences, and multiple polymarket tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) cover similar arbitrage/mispricing territory. Additionally, ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence clearly overlap, making it hard to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern. Some use a gh_ prefix (gh_get_file, gh_get_repo, etc.), others are descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, bet_research), and a few are plain verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe). The mixed conventions and varied verb/noun styles make the set feel disjointed.

Tool Count3/5

At 37 tools, the count is high but still within a usable range. However, the server is named 'Github_private' yet includes only 7 GitHub-specific tools and 30+ unrelated tools (Pipeworx data, Polymarket betting, memory, etc.). This suggests the server aggregates multiple unrelated domains, making the count feel bloated for its apparent GitHub purpose.

Completeness2/5

Given the server name, the GitHub tool surface is severely incomplete: there are no create/update/delete operations for repos, no PR creation or merging, no issue comments, no branches, and no search across repos. The Pipeworx side is fairly comprehensive, but the mismatch between the server name and the actual tool set leaves major gaps for expected GitHub workflows.

Resources