GitHub Chat MCP
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| index_repositoryA | Index a GitHub repository to analyze its codebase. This must be done before asking questions about the repository. |
| query_repositoryB | Ask questions about a GitHub repository and receive detailed AI responses. The repository must be indexed first. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: index_repository is for preparing the repository for analysis, while query_repository is for asking questions about the indexed repository. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (index_repository and query_repository), using the same naming convention and structure throughout the set.
With only 2 tools, the server feels too thin for its apparent purpose of GitHub repository analysis. It lacks essential operations like listing repositories, managing indexes, or handling errors, which limits functionality and could cause agent failures.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for GitHub repository analysis. It covers only indexing and querying, missing core operations such as repository discovery, index management, or error handling, leading to significant gaps in workflow coverage.