github-fetcher

GitHub code search

github_search_code

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search code across GitHub repositories by query to locate matching files and snippets; supports pagination and cache bypass.

Instructions

Search code across GitHub. Requires a token; GitHub allows this endpoint only 10 requests/minute and caps results at 1000.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "github_search_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number, starting at 1
`fresh`	No	Bypass the local cache
`query`	Yes	GitHub code search query
`per_page`	No	Items per page, default 20

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, yet the description still adds real operational facts: an auth requirement, a hard 10 requests/minute throttle, and a 1000-result ceiling. Those are exactly the constraints an agent needs to plan pagination and avoid burning quota.

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, front-loaded with what the tool does and followed immediately by the constraints that affect whether it can be used at all. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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 partially compensates by disclosing the 1000-result cap, which bounds expectations about return volume. It still leaves the response shape (item fields, total count) unstated, a minor gap for a search endpoint with fully documented parameters.

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 description coverage is 100%, so page, per_page, fresh, and query are already documented. The description adds no query-syntax guidance (qualifiers like repo:, path:, language:), which is the one place it could have added value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Search code across GitHub" names a specific verb and resource, and the word "code" separates it from github_search_repos and github_search_issues. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary from the tool name alone.

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?

"Requires a token" is a useful precondition, but the description never says when to reach for this tool instead of github_search_repos, github_search_issues, or github_file. Usage is only implied by the resource word "code".

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