github-fetcher

GitHub repository

github_repo

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch GitHub repository metadata—description, visibility, default branch, stars, forks, open issues (including pull requests), language, license, topics, and timestamps—to inspect repo details without cloning.

Instructions

Read repository metadata: description, visibility, default branch, stars, forks, open issues, language, license, topics, and timestamps. open_issues includes pull requests.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "github_repo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes	Repository in owner/name form
`fresh`	No	Bypass the local cache

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context — the full set of returned fields and the caveat that open_issues includes pull requests — which an agent could not otherwise know without an output schema. It stops short of covering caching behavior, rate limits, or auth requirements.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, and every clause carries information — the field enumeration and the pull-request caveat both earn their place. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly spends its budget documenting what comes back, which is what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. The main remaining gap is operational context: behavior on a missing repo, private-repo auth, and whether stale cached data is returned unless 'fresh' is set.

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 both parameters ('repo' in owner/name form and 'fresh' to bypass cache) documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning; its field list describes the response, not the inputs. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter work.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read repository metadata') and then enumerates the exact fields returned (visibility, default branch, stars, forks, open issues, language, license, topics, timestamps). That field list clearly separates it from siblings such as github_tree, github_file, or github_search_repos, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for repo-level metadata rather than file contents or search. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer github_repo_health or github_search_repos, and no stated prerequisites such as authentication for private repos.

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