List a repository's public forks to identify adoption signals. Retrieve paginated fork data sorted by newest, oldest, stargazers, or watchers.
List a repository's public forks. Returns a page of a repository's public forks (adopter signal).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| sort | No | Sort order | |
| owner | Yes | Repository owner (user or org login) | |
| per_page | No | Results per page (max 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Input schema / properties / sort / enumAdded value: +[
+ "newest",
+ "oldest",
+ "stargazers",
+ "watchers"
+]v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does state the operation is limited to public forks and that it returns a page rather than the full set. It doesn't cover defaults, rate limits, or what fields each fork includes, so it is minimally transparent but not rich.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main action. The second sentence repeats 'a repository's public forks' but adds the paging behavior and use-case signal, so it is mostly earned.
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 simple list tool, owner/repo plus pagination and sort are documented in the schema, and the description adds the public-scope and adopter-signal context. Without an output schema or annotations, the agent still doesn't know the shape of fork entries or default ordering, so completeness is adequate but not full.
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 schema covers all five parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond confirming pagination, which is already represented by the page and per_page parameters. No compensation is needed.
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 names a specific resource ('a repository's public forks') and a concrete verb ('List'), and the parenthetical 'adopter signal' explains why an agent might call it. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling GitHub tools like github_repo_releases or github_repo_languages even without naming an alternative.
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 only usage guidance is the parenthetical 'adopter signal', which implies the tool is for gauging adoption but doesn't state when to prefer it over other GitHub tools. There are no exclusions or alternatives. This is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.