GitHub MCP Server

github_get_repositories

Fetch GitHub repositories by owner, public, private, or member status, with sorting and pagination controls, to support repository discovery and management.

Instructions

獲取 GitHub 倉庫列表

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "github_get_repositories"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sort`	No	排序方式	updated
`type`	No	倉庫類型	owner
`per_page`	No	每頁顯示數量 (預設 20)

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. It implies a read-only retrieval operation, but does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the returned list contains or how it is ordered.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity leaves important behavioral and usage context to other fields.

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 list tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what repositories are returned, pagination expectations, or when this list operation is preferable to github_get_repository.

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 sort, type, and per_page with enum values and defaults. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 case.

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' = fetch/get) and resource ('GitHub 倉庫列表' = GitHub repository list), making it clear this returns a list rather than a single repository. It is distinguishable from the singular sibling github_get_repository, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 such as github_get_repository, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and description.

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