GitHub MCP Server

github_get_job_logs

Fetch the logs for a GitHub Actions workflow job by repository and job ID to troubleshoot failed runs.

Instructions

獲取工作流任務的日誌

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": {
      "repository": "<repository>",
      "jobId": "<jobId>"
    },
    "name": "github_get_job_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jobId`	Yes	任務 ID
`repository`	Yes	倉庫標識 (格式: owner/repo)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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 behavioral burden, yet it offers nothing beyond the one-line purpose. It does not disclose permissions required, whether logs are truncated or paginated, roughly how large the output may be, or behavior on a failed job.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words and the purpose front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is closer to under-specification than to well-structured conciseness.

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 log-retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain at least how to obtain the jobId and what the returned logs look like. Neither is covered, leaving significant gaps for an agent calling it correctly the first time.

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%, with both params (jobId, repository) documented in the schema including the owner/repo format. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already supplies, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (獲取/get) and resource (工作流任務的日誌/workflow job logs), which is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as github_get_workflow_run_jobs or github_get_workflow_run, leaving the agent to infer that this returns logs rather than job metadata.

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 tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite such as first calling github_get_workflow_run_jobs to obtain a valid jobId. The agent must infer the workflow entirely on its own.

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