Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
github-mcp

github-mcp

by AbdeeBuilds
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

search_code

Search across GitHub repositories using code search syntax. Find code by repo, language, or keywords.

Instructions

Search for code across GitHub repos. Requires a fine-grained token with 'Code: Read' scope, or a classic token with repo scope.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of code-search results to return
queryYesSearch query in GitHub code search syntax, e.g. 'repo:owner/name function_name' or 'language:python async'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses token requirements but omits key behavioral traits such as return format, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. As a search tool, it is likely read-only, but this is not stated.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and includes a critical prerequisite. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the simple two-parameter schema with full descriptions and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's core functionality and token requirements. It could mention output structure but is not severely lacking.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not explain syntax details or provide examples beyond what is in 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 clearly states the tool searches for code across GitHub repos, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on issues, pull requests, or file content. No ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description mentions required token scopes as a prerequisite but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_file_content, nor does it provide scenarios or exclusions. Usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools