Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
github-fetcher

github-fetcher

by KurvCygnus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

GitHub capabilities

github_capabilities
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists every GitHub tool grouped by task to help agents identify the correct read-only capability when unsure which tool fits a job.

Instructions

Task-grouped index of every tool in this server. Call this first when unsure which tool fits a job; costs nothing.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "github_capabilities"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — 'costs nothing' signals no rate-limit/API quota consumption, which is decision-relevant for cheap-first discovery. It stops short of describing what the returned index looks like, but the annotation set carries the safety burden.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, zero waste. The 'what' is front-loaded and the usage instruction follows immediately, with the cost note as a compact closer.

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 zero-parameter discovery tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this is nearly complete: purpose, when to call, and cost are all covered. The one gap is not hinting at the shape of the returned index (names vs. grouped categories), which would help an agent parse the result.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter surface needing explanation and the description correctly implies a no-argument call.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — a 'task-grouped index of every tool in this server' — which is a distinct purpose no sibling tool shares (all siblings target concrete GitHub resources like issues, PRs, workflows). An agent can immediately tell this is the discovery/meta tool.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'Call this first when unsure which tool fits a job' gives an explicit trigger condition for use. It does not state the inverse (skip it when you already know the tool name), but the conditional framing is clear enough to route behavior.

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