Discover a GitHub organization's public repositories to analyze its technology stack.
List a GitHub organization's public repositories. Returns a page of an organization's public repositories (company tech stack).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org | Yes | GitHub organization login | |
| page | No | Page number | |
| sort | No | Sort field | |
| type | No | Repository type | |
| per_page | No | Results per page (max 100) | |
| direction | No | Sort direction |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Input schema / properties / direction / enumAdded value: +[
+ "asc",
+ "desc"
+]Input schema / properties / sort / enumAdded value: +[
+ "created",
+ "updated",
+ "pushed",
+ "full_name"
+]Input schema / properties / type / enumAdded value: +[
+ "all",
+ "public",
+ "forks",
+ "sources",
+ "member"
+]v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the tool returns a page and only public repositories, which are the key behavioral facts for this safe read operation. It does not discuss rate limits or result shape, but those are less critical here.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence repeats 'organization's public repositories' rather than referring back to it. This is minor redundancy rather than a serious structural problem.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a paginated public-list tool, the description combined with the full schema is sufficient: it identifies the org, public scope, and paging behavior. There is no output schema, but 'a page of repositories' adequately conveys the return concept.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for all 6 parameters, including org, page, sort, type, per_page, and direction. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (List), resource (GitHub organization's public repositories), and an application hint (company tech stack). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like github_user_repos and github_repo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The org-scoped context is explicit and the 'company tech stack' hint signals when this tool is relevant. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of the top score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.