astrbot-mcp

github_get_repo

Fetch GitHub repository details by owner and repository name to inspect metadata and configuration for a project.

Instructions

获取 GitHub 仓库详情。

Args: owner: 仓库拥有者。 repo: 仓库名称。

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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "github_get_repo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes
`owner`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior for missing repos, or whether private repos are accessible — all relevant for a GitHub API call.

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?

One-line purpose with an args list; front-loaded and short. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema but not wasteful.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return format need not be described. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is minimally adequate, but the absence of annotations plus zero schema description coverage leaves the agent without auth or error context.

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

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the schema titles are just "Owner"/"Repo". The description's arg notes ("仓库拥有者", "仓库名称") clarify meaning slightly, but effectively restate the parameter names rather than adding format, constraints, or examples.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("获取 GitHub 仓库详情" – fetch GitHub repository details), which is clearly distinct from siblings like github_search_repos or github_get_file. It does not explicitly name the alternative tools, but the resource is precise enough that an agent can tell it apart.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus github_search_repos (search vs. direct lookup by owner/name) or the file/issue siblings. The agent must infer the context entirely from the tool name.

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