github-fetcher

GitHub rate limit

github_rate_limit

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check authenticated or anonymous GitHub API quota and reset times, optionally for one resource bucket, to diagnose 403 or 429 rate-limit responses before retrying requests.

Instructions

Report the authenticated or anonymous GitHub API quota and reset times. Set resource to project a single bucket such as core or search. Call this first when a request is refused with 403 or 429.

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_rate_limit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`resource`	No	Limit the projection to one resource bucket, e.g. core or search

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0Nov 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / resource

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Limit the projection to one resource bucket, e.g. core or search",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the result differs for authenticated vs anonymous callers, returns reset times in addition to quota, and is the correct diagnostic step after a 403/429 refusal.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the narrowing parameter, then the operational trigger. No filler and every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 one-parameter read-only diagnostic tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description conveys enough: it names the returned quantities (quota, reset times) and both auth modes. It stops short of describing the response structure or whether all buckets are returned when `resource` is omitted.

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%, so the single `resource` parameter is already documented and the baseline is 3. The description's 'project a single bucket such as core or search' largely restates the schema text and adds no format, default, or enumeration details beyond it.

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: 'Report the authenticated or anonymous GitHub API quota and reset times.' No sibling tool covers rate limits, so the differentiation is implicit but unambiguous, and the description even clarifies the auth-mode distinction.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Call this first when a request is refused with 403 or 429.' That is concrete when-to-use guidance. It does not discuss when-not to call (e.g. proactive polling etiquette), but there are no sibling alternatives to route against, so the gap is minor.

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