Skip to main content
Glama
AsyncFuncAI

GitHub Chat MCP

by AsyncFuncAI
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    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.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (index_repository and query_repository), using the same naming convention and structure throughout the set.

    Tool Count2/5

    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.

    Completeness2/5

    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.

  • Average 3.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community 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

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the indexing prerequisite but doesn't describe other important behaviors: what types of questions are supported, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, or error conditions. For a tool with AI responses and conversation history, this leaves significant 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 with just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key prerequisite. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with no unnecessary elaboration or repetition.

    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 tool that queries repositories with AI responses and supports conversation history, the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, the description doesn't explain what the AI responses contain, how conversation history should be structured, error handling, or limitations. The indexing prerequisite is mentioned, but other critical context is missing.

    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 the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'questions about a GitHub repository' which aligns with the parameters but doesn't provide additional semantic context about how parameters interact or special considerations.

    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: 'Ask questions about a GitHub repository and receive detailed AI responses.' It specifies the verb ('ask questions'), resource ('GitHub repository'), and outcome ('detailed AI responses'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'index_repository' beyond mentioning indexing as a prerequisite.

    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 provides some usage context by stating 'The repository must be indexed first,' which implies a prerequisite relationship with 'index_repository.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide clear exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that indexing is required before querying (a behavioral constraint) but doesn't mention other traits like whether indexing is idempotent, how long it takes, error conditions, or what 'analyze its codebase' entails operationally. The description adds some context but leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

    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?

    Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, the second provides crucial usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (the prerequisite nature) is front-loaded in the second sentence.

    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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is reasonably complete for its core purpose and workflow context. It explains why indexing is needed and how it relates to querying, though it could better address behavioral aspects like what 'indexing' actually does or what happens on repeated calls.

    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% (the single parameter 'repo_url' is fully documented in the schema with format details). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

    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 specific action ('index') and resource ('GitHub repository') with the purpose 'to analyze its codebase'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'query_repository' by explaining this is a prerequisite step before querying.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    Explicitly states when to use this tool ('before asking questions about the repository') and implies an alternative workflow with the sibling tool 'query_repository'. Provides clear context about the prerequisite nature of indexing.

    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-chat-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

github-chat-mcp 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/AsyncFuncAI/github-chat-mcp'

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