GitHub MCP Server

github_get_workflow_runs

Retrieve GitHub Actions workflow runs for a repository, filtered by branch or status, to monitor CI/CD pipeline activity and check build results.

Instructions

獲取倉庫的 GitHub Actions 工作流運行

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>"
    },
    "name": "github_get_workflow_runs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`branch`	No	分支名稱
`status`	No	運行狀態
`per_page`	No	每頁顯示數量
`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

C2.8/5.0

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 only says 'get'. It does not disclose that this is a paginated list operation, whether it requires authentication, how results are ordered or scoped, or any rate-limit behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single short clause with no wasted words, which is good, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. There is no front-loaded scope or filtering context to anchor the agent.

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 4-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits pagination behavior, result ordering, and how it relates to its near-identical siblings, which an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly.

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 branch, status (enum), per_page, and repository all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 clear verb+resource: getting a repository's GitHub Actions workflow runs. It is understandable in isolation, but it does not distinguish this list-style tool from the closely-named sibling github_get_workflow_run (singular detail) or github_get_workflow_run_jobs, leaving ambiguity about which tool an agent should pick.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With siblings like github_get_workflow_run and github_get_workflow_run_jobs in the same namespace, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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