List trending GitHub developers by time window and language. Get clean JSON data to identify emerging coding talent for market discovery.
List trending GitHub developers. Returns the developers on GitHub's trending developers page (market discovery).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No | Time window | |
| language | No | Programming language filter (e.g. go, python) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Input schema / properties / since / enumAdded value: +[
+ "daily",
+ "weekly",
+ "monthly"
+]v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the data source (GitHub's trending developers page) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how results are ordered, whether pagination exists, or any rate-limit/auth considerations.
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 the main action is front-loaded. However, the second sentence largely restates the first, and 'market discovery' is vague filler that doesn't earn its place.
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?
This is a simple listing tool with two optional parameters, so heavy documentation isn't necessary. Still, the absence of any distinction from github_trending and no description of the return shape leaves minor gaps in completeness.
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%: 'since' has an enum and 'Time window', and 'language' has a clear example. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List trending GitHub developers.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling github_trending by focusing on developers rather than repositories. However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative, and the phrase 'market discovery' adds little clarity.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_trending, github_search_users, or github_user. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context-based routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.