Skip to main content
Glama
alsonwangkhem

GitHub MCP Server

by alsonwangkhem
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: create-issue handles issue creation, get-repo-info retrieves repository details, list-issues lists existing issues, and search-repos searches for repositories. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    The tools follow a consistent verb-noun pattern with hyphens (e.g., create-issue, get-repo-info), which is predictable and readable. However, there is a minor deviation in 'get-repo-info' where 'info' is appended, slightly breaking the pure verb-noun convention compared to others like 'list-issues'.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 4 tools, the set feels thin for a GitHub server, lacking common operations like updating/deleting issues, managing pull requests, or accessing repository contents. While the tools cover basic functions, the count is borderline low for the broad scope of GitHub interactions.

    Completeness2/5

    There are significant gaps in the tool surface for a GitHub domain. Missing operations include update_issue, delete_issue, create_pull_request, get_pull_request, and repository management actions (e.g., create_repo, update_repo). This incomplete coverage will likely cause agent failures when trying to perform common GitHub workflows.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns issue ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

    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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and gets straight to the point.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (return values), authentication needs, error handling, or constraints. Given the complexity of creating GitHub issues, more context would be helpful.

    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 description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the action ('Create a new issue') and target resource ('in a GitHub repository'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-issues' or 'search-repos' beyond the obvious create vs. read distinction.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication, repository access), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar operations in sibling tools beyond the basic verb difference.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get information' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, what specific information is returned, error conditions, or whether this is a lightweight vs comprehensive repository query. The description is too minimal for a tool with no annotation coverage.

    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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. For a tool that presumably returns repository information (name, description, stars, forks, etc.), the description should at least hint at what information is returned. The current description leaves too much unspecified about the tool's behavior and output.

    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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('owner' and 'repo') well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get information') and resource ('about a specific GitHub repository'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'search-repos' or 'list-issues' that might also provide repository information in different contexts.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to 'search-repos' (which might return multiple repositories) or 'list-issues' (which focuses on issues rather than repository metadata). There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative recommendations.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List issues') but doesn't mention critical behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination details, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

    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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given the complexity of a GitHub API tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or output structure, which are crucial for an agent to invoke this tool correctly in a real-world context.

    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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('issues in a GitHub repository'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search-repos' or 'get-repo-info', which might also involve repository data retrieval, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search-repos' or 'create-issue'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, such as needing repository access, or when this tool is preferred over others for issue retrieval.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It mentions 'search' but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, result format, pagination behavior, or what happens when no results are found. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

    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 extremely concise at just four words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential purpose and doesn't include any unnecessary information. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    For a search tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (repository objects? just names?), doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. The combination of missing behavioral context and lack of output information creates significant gaps.

    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 has 100% description coverage, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain search syntax, default values, or provide examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description 'Search for GitHub repositories' clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('GitHub repositories'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-repo-info' or 'list-issues' - it doesn't specify this is for finding repositories by search criteria rather than retrieving specific repository details or listing issues.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use search-repos instead of get-repo-info (for specific repository details) or list-issues (for repository issues), nor does it provide any context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

github-mcp-2 MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

github-mcp-2 MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/alsonwangkhem/github-mcp-2'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server