Retrieve public details for a single GitHub repository by owner and repo name, returning the core project object as clean JSON.
Retrieve a GitHub repository. Returns public detail for a single repository (the core project object).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| owner | Yes | Repository owner (user or org login) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Retrieve' and 'public detail', implying read-only operation but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or what fields are returned. Minimal transparency beyond what the schema already indicates.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no unnecessary words. Efficiently communicates the core purpose.
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?
Without an output schema, the description vaguely states 'Returns public detail for a single repository (the core project object)'. It is adequate but could be more specific about the return structure, e.g., mentioning typical fields like description, stars, etc.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters ('Repository name' and 'Repository owner (user or org login)'). The description adds no extra meaning, earning the baseline score of 3.
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?
The description clearly states 'Retrieve a GitHub repository' and specifies it returns 'public detail for a single repository (the core project object)'. This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like github_org, github_user, or github_repo_contributors.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_org_repos or github_search_repositories. The description does not provide context for selection among the many GitHub-related sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.