Skip to main content
Glama

github_apps_check_token

Check a GitHub App token's validity and permissions using its client ID and request body.

Instructions

Check a token

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
client_idYesclient_id
bodyNoRequest body (JSON object)

Implementation Reference

  • Handler for github_apps_check_token: calls githubRequest with POST method to /applications/{client_id}/token, passing the request body.
    handler: async (args: Record<string, any>) => {
      return githubRequest("POST", `/applications/${args.client_id}/token`, args.body, undefined);
    },
  • Input schema for github_apps_check_token: requires client_id (string) and optionally accepts body (record of string to unknown).
    inputSchema: z.object({
      client_id: z.string().describe("client_id"),
      body: z.record(z.string(), z.unknown()).optional().describe("Request body (JSON object)")
    }),
  • Tool definition object for github_apps_check_token within the appsTools array, including name, description, inputSchema, and handler.
    {
      name: "github_apps_check_token",
      description: "Check a token",
      inputSchema: z.object({
        client_id: z.string().describe("client_id"),
        body: z.record(z.string(), z.unknown()).optional().describe("Request body (JSON object)")
      }),
      handler: async (args: Record<string, any>) => {
        return githubRequest("POST", `/applications/${args.client_id}/token`, args.body, undefined);
      },
    },
  • The githubRequest function used by the handler to make authenticated HTTP requests to the GitHub API.
    export async function githubRequest<T>(
      method: string,
      path: string,
      body?: Record<string, unknown>,
      params?: Record<string, string | number | boolean | string[] | undefined>
    ): Promise<T> {
      const url = new URL(`${BASE_URL}${path}`);
    
      if (params) {
        for (const [key, value] of Object.entries(params)) {
          if (value === undefined || value === null || value === "") continue;
          if (Array.isArray(value)) {
            url.searchParams.set(key, value.join(","));
          } else {
            url.searchParams.set(key, String(value));
          }
        }
      }
    
      const headers: Record<string, string> = {
        Authorization: `Bearer ${getToken()}`,
        Accept: "application/vnd.github+json",
        "X-GitHub-Api-Version": "2022-11-28",
        "User-Agent": "github-mcp/1.0.0",
      };
    
      if (body) {
        headers["Content-Type"] = "application/json";
      }
    
      const res = await fetch(url.toString(), {
        method,
        headers,
        body: body ? JSON.stringify(body) : undefined,
      });
    
      if (!res.ok) {
        const text = await res.text().catch(() => "");
        let detail = text;
        try {
          const json = JSON.parse(text);
          detail = json.message || text;
          if (json.errors) detail += ` -- ${JSON.stringify(json.errors)}`;
        } catch {}
        throw new Error(`GitHub API error ${res.status}: ${detail}`);
      }
    
      if (res.status === 204) return {} as T;
    
      return res.json() as Promise<T>;
    }
  • src/index.ts:110-130 (registration)
    MCP server tool registration loop — each tool object (including github_apps_check_token) is registered via server.tool().
    for (const tool of allTools) {
      server.tool(
        tool.name,
        tool.description,
        tool.inputSchema.shape as any,
        async (args: any) => {
          try {
            const result = await tool.handler(args as any);
            return {
              content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
            };
          } catch (err) {
            const message = err instanceof Error ? err.message : String(err);
            return {
              content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: `Error: ${message}` }],
              isError: true,
            };
          }
        }
      );
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description offers no details on side effects, error conditions, or return format. It does not even state whether the operation is read-only or safe.

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 description is very short (3 words), which is concise but at the cost of clarity. It front-loads the verb and object, but lacks necessary context. Every word earns its place, but it does not provide sufficient information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what information is returned by the check, nor does it clarify the purpose of the body parameter. The agent would not be able to understand the tool's behavior from this description alone.

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%, with client_id and body already described in the schema. The description adds no new information about the parameters beyond the schema's minimal descriptions. The body parameter's structure is left unspecified, but the schema already indicates it is a free-form JSON object.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description 'Check a token' is vague and generic. It does not specify the type of token (e.g., GitHub App installation token) or what 'check' means (validity, permissions, etc.). Even though the tool name indicates it is for GitHub Apps, the description fails to differentiate it from other token-related tools like reset_token or scope_token.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools for token management (e.g., github_apps_reset_token, github_apps_scope_token), but the description does not clarify the specific scenario for this check operation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Eyalm321/github-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server