GitHub MCP Server

github_get_workflow_run_jobs

Retrieve the jobs for a specific GitHub Actions workflow run by providing the repository and run ID. Use it to inspect job statuses, steps, and outcomes.

Instructions

獲取工作流運行的任務列表

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>",
      "runId": "<runId>"
    },
    "name": "github_get_workflow_run_jobs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`runId`	Yes	工作流運行 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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states that it lists jobs and does not disclose read-only status, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or rate limits. This is minimal disclosure for a list endpoint.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool and immediately conveys the core action.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema is fully documented, but the description does not mention pagination or return format, which are useful for list endpoints. No output schema or annotations exist to fill these gaps, so the definition is adequate but incomplete.

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 both parameters (runId and repository) are already well documented. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 and resource: 'get' plus 'list of jobs for a workflow run.' It is clear what the tool returns and its scope is distinguishable from siblings like github_get_job_logs or github_get_workflow_run. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from those alternatives.

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_job_logs or github_get_workflow_run. The purpose can be inferred from the name and description, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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