Skip to main content
Glama

github_code_scanning_get_variant_analysis_repo_task

Retrieve the analysis status of a repository in a CodeQL variant analysis to monitor code scanning progress and results.

Instructions

Get the analysis status of a repository in a CodeQL variant analysis

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownerYesowner
repoYesrepo
codeql_variant_analysis_idYescodeql_variant_analysis_id
repo_ownerYesrepo_owner
repo_nameYesrepo_name

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the tool logic. It makes a GET request to the GitHub API to get the analysis status of a repository in a CodeQL variant analysis.
    handler: async (args: Record<string, any>) => {
      return githubRequest("GET", `/repos/${args.owner}/${args.repo}/code-scanning/codeql/variant-analyses/${args.codeql_variant_analysis_id}/repos/${args.repo_owner}/${args.repo_name}`, undefined, undefined);
    },
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters: owner, repo, codeql_variant_analysis_id, repo_owner, and repo_name.
    inputSchema: z.object({
      owner: z.string().describe("owner"),
      repo: z.string().describe("repo"),
      codeql_variant_analysis_id: z.string().describe("codeql_variant_analysis_id"),
      repo_owner: z.string().describe("repo_owner"),
      repo_name: z.string().describe("repo_name")
  • The tool definition object in the codeScanningTools array, containing name, description, inputSchema, and handler.
      name: "github_code_scanning_get_variant_analysis_repo_task",
      description: "Get the analysis status of a repository in a CodeQL variant analysis",
      inputSchema: z.object({
        owner: z.string().describe("owner"),
        repo: z.string().describe("repo"),
        codeql_variant_analysis_id: z.string().describe("codeql_variant_analysis_id"),
        repo_owner: z.string().describe("repo_owner"),
        repo_name: z.string().describe("repo_name")
      }),
      handler: async (args: Record<string, any>) => {
        return githubRequest("GET", `/repos/${args.owner}/${args.repo}/code-scanning/codeql/variant-analyses/${args.codeql_variant_analysis_id}/repos/${args.repo_owner}/${args.repo_name}`, undefined, undefined);
      },
    },
  • The githubRequest helper 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>;
Behavior2/5

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

The description lacks important behavioral details: it does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions (e.g., if a repository is not part of the analysis). Without annotations, this minimal description leaves the agent uninformed.

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?

The description is one sentence of 10 words – extremely concise. However, it may be too terse; some additional context would improve without losing conciseness.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description should explain what the returned 'analysis status' includes or its possible values. It omits this, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect from the response.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Though input schema has 100% coverage, parameter descriptions are trivial (just parameter names). The description adds no clarification about the distinct roles of 'owner/repo' vs 'repo_owner/repo_name', which could confuse an agent about which identifies the variant analysis and which the target repository.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool gets 'the analysis status of a repository in a CodeQL variant analysis'. It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'analysis status', distinguishing it from related tools like 'get_variant_analysis' which retrieves the overall analysis rather than per-repo status.

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 such as 'get_variant_analysis'. An agent must infer the difference from the name alone, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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