Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official

github_search_repositories

Search public GitHub repositories by query and refine results with sorting by stars, forks, help-wanted issues, or update date, plus pagination for browsing.

Instructions

Search public GitHub repositories. Searches public GitHub repositories with the required GitHub search query q. Order with sort (stars, forks, help-wanted-issues or updated) and order, and page with page and per_page (max 100). The response has total_count and items with full name, owner, description, language, stars, forks, topics and license.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYesGitHub repository search query
pageNoPage number
sortNoSort field
orderNoSort order
per_pageNoResults per page (max 100)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.17.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / order / enum
      Added value: +[
      +  "asc",
      +  "desc"
      +]
    • addedInput schema / properties / sort / enum
      Added value: +[
      +  "stars",
      +  "forks",
      +  "help-wanted-issues",
      +  "updated"
      +]
  2. Addedv1.2.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description has to carry behavioral disclosure, and it does state public-only scope, per_page max 100, pagination, and response fields. It still omits authentication requirements, rate limits, and any total result cap.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is short and front-loaded, with the core purpose first. However, the first two sentences redundantly repeat 'Search public GitHub repositories' / 'Searches public GitHub repositories.'

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?

For a five-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description supplies response shape and pagination limits. It is nearly complete, though it does not mention auth requirements or the total result cap.

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 coverage is 100% and already documents q, page, sort, order, and per_page including enum values. The description repeats the sort values and max 100 but adds little meaning beyond confirming q is required.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Search public GitHub repositories.' That separates it from github_search_users and repo-detail siblings, but it never explicitly names an alternative, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains how to query, sort, order, and page results, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or routing to github_trending or github_search_users. The intended usage is only implied by the search operation.

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