Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

github_user_pinned

List a GitHub user's pinned repositories by username, returning each repo's owner, name, URL, description, language, stars, and forks.

Instructions

List a GitHub user's pinned repositories. Returns the repositories a GitHub user has pinned on their profile, identified by the required username. Each has its owner, name, URL, description, language, stars and forks. The list is empty when the user has pinned nothing.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usernameYesGitHub username

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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 carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the returned fields (owner, name, URL, description, language, stars, forks) plus the empty-list edge case. It omits auth requirements and rate-limit behavior, but the output and edge-case disclosure is genuinely useful.

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?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded, and no padding. Slight redundancy between the opening 'List a GitHub user's pinned repositories' and the following 'Returns the repositories a GitHub user has pinned on their profile', which costs it a point.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the resource, the input, the returned fields, and the empty case. Missing auth/rate-limit notes keep it short of full completeness.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it as the GitHub username. The description only restates that it is required and identifies the user, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which matches the baseline 3.

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 (List) and resource (a GitHub user's pinned repositories), and the qualifier 'pinned' naturally distinguishes it from siblings like github_user_repos. However, it never names an alternative tool, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should be called when it wants a specific user's pinned repos. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to sibling tools such as github_user_repos for all repositories.

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