Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

github_repo_languages

Retrieve a GitHub repository's language breakdown by owner and repo, returning language and byte-count pairs sorted by bytes descending.

Instructions

Retrieve a repository's language breakdown. Returns the languages detected in a GitHub repository, identified by the required owner and repo, as language and byte-count pairs sorted by bytes, largest first.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesRepository name
ownerYesRepository owner (user or org login)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful output behavior: language/byte-count pairs sorted by bytes descending. That is genuinely useful since there is no output schema. It omits any mention of authentication, rate limits, or error behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return format. No filler, no redundancy; every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With two required params, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the crucial missing piece—the shape and ordering of the return value. It is nearly complete for a simple read tool; only minor operational details (rate limits, empty-repo behavior) are absent.

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 the baseline is 3. The description only reiterates that `owner` and `repo` are required, which the schema already states, and adds no format, constraint, or edge-case detail beyond it.

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 (retrieve a repository's language breakdown) and even specifies the return shape, which is unambiguous. It distinguishes itself by resource from generic siblings like github_repo, but never names or contrasts an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the tool for language stats rather than github_repo or github_repo_contributors. This matches the calibration for 'no when-to-use, no prerequisites'.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools