Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

github_user_repos

List a GitHub user's public repositories by username, then filter by type and sort or paginate results.

Instructions

List a GitHub user's public repositories. Lists the public repositories of a GitHub user, identified by the required username. Filter with type (all, owner or member), order with sort (created, updated, pushed or full_name) and direction, and page with page and per_page (max 100). Each repository has its name, description, language, stars, forks, topics, fork flag and last push time.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number
sortNoSort field
typeNoRepository type
per_pageNoResults per page (max 100)
usernameYesGitHub username
directionNoSort direction

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.17.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / direction / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "asc",
+  "desc"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / sort / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "created",
+  "updated",
+  "pushed",
+  "full_name"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "all",
+  "owner",
+  "member"
+]
  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 adds useful context by stating only public repositories are returned and enumerating the returned fields (name, language, stars, forks, etc.), which signals a read-only listing. It omits rate limits, auth requirements, and pagination defaults, so it is helpful but not rich.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the sentence order is logical, but the opening two sentences are redundant, restating 'lists the public repositories of a GitHub user' after already saying 'List a GitHub user's public repositories.' The repetition costs space without adding information.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description compensates by describing the shape of each returned repository. It is close to complete, missing only pagination defaults and any rate-limit/auth notes that would help an agent call it reliably.

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 enums are already fully specified in the schema, so the description mostly restates parameter values it does not need to repeat. It does group them meaningfully (filter/order/page) but adds no syntax or default beyond the 'max 100' cap already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precise verb and resource ('List a GitHub user's public repositories') and scopes it to a specific user, which reads clearly against unrelated siblings. It does not, however, disambiguate from nearby siblings such as github_org_repos, github_user_pinned, or github_search_repositories, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 implied rather than stated: the agent can infer 'use this to list a user's repos,' and the description explains how to filter/sort/page. But there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over github_user_pinned (pinned repos) or github_search_repositories, and no exclusions.

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