DevGlobe

match_developers_to_repository

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when the user starts with a public GitHub repository and wants relevant indexed developers. Matches public owner, contribution, language, topic, repository, and self-declared opportunity signals; this is not a suitability judgment. Example: {"repository":"owner/repo","limit":10}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum matches from 1 to 20
`repository`	Yes	Public GitHub repository as owner/repository or a github.com URL

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`results`	Yes
`repository`	Yes
`resultCount`	Yes
`methodologyDisclaimer`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 7, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / match

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "disclaimer": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "label": {
+      "enum": [
+        "Strong match",
+        "Good match",
+        "Related match"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "method": {
+      "enum": [
+        "text",
+        "semantic",
+        "hybrid"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reasons": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "maxItems": 3,
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "score": {
+      "maximum": 100,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "signals": {
+      "items": {
+        "enum": [
+          "text",
+          "semantic"
+        ],
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "score",
+    "label",
+    "reasons",
+    "signals",
+    "method",
+    "disclaimer"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful nuance by listing the matching signals (owner, contribution, language, topic, repository, self-declared opportunities) and explicitly stating this is not a suitability judgment.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear use statement, a compact explanation of matching signals, a caveat about suitability, and a short example. No unnecessary words or redundant details.

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?

Given that an output schema is present and the annotations cover safety guarantees, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool. It covers the trigger, input format, matching logic, and a key limitation.

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?

The schema descriptions cover both parameters with 100% coverage. The description reinforces this with an example showing the expected repository format and a default limit, making parameter usage slightly clearer without contradicting the schema.

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 states a specific action ('matches relevant indexed developers') and a concrete trigger ('user starts with a public GitHub repository'). It clearly distinguishes itself from a suitability judgment and includes an example, making the tool's scope easy to identify.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: when the user starts with a public GitHub repository and wants relevant developers. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with sibling tools like find_similar_developers, but the trigger is clear enough for most cases.

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

All DevGlobe tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.