Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official

github_trending_developers

Find trending GitHub developers by time window or programming language, returning usernames, profiles, and popular repositories for discovery.

Instructions

List trending GitHub developers. Lists the developers currently trending on GitHub. Filter by programming language (such as go or python) and choose the window with since (daily, weekly or monthly). Each developer has a username, display name, profile URL and their popular repository.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sinceNoTime window
languageNoProgramming language filter (e.g. go, python)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.17.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / since / enum
      Added value: +[
      +  "daily",
      +  "weekly",
      +  "monthly"
      +]
  2. Addedv1.2.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of each result (username, display name, profile URL, popular repository), which is useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, result count, or pagination.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The first two sentences are near-duplicates ('List trending GitHub developers' / 'Lists the developers currently trending on GitHub'), which is wasted space. The remaining filter and return-content sentences are efficient and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers the resource, both filters, and the fields returned per developer. Only behavioral details like result limits are missing.

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 the schema already documents both parameters including example values and the since enum. The description merely restates those same examples ('go'/'python', 'daily'/'weekly'/'monthly'), adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List trending GitHub developers') and the 'developers' framing naturally separates it from the repos-oriented github_trending sibling. It does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, 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?

The description explains the available filters (language, since window) but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_trending or github_search_users, nor any when-not conditions. Usage is only implied by what the tool returns.

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