github-fetcher

GitHub workflow run

github_workflow_run

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a GitHub Actions workflow run by repository and run ID, optionally including up to 100 jobs with step statuses and conclusions.

Instructions

Read one workflow run. Set include_jobs=true to fetch up to 100 jobs with their step statuses and conclusions.

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>",
      "run_id": "<run_id>"
    },
    "name": "github_workflow_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	Yes	Repository in owner/name form
`fresh`	No	Bypass the local cache
`run_id`	Yes	Workflow run id
`include_jobs`	No	Include up to 100 jobs and their steps

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the 100-job cap on include_jobs and that results carry step statuses and conclusions. It omits cache behavior (the fresh flag) and failure/error behavior, which matters for a remote fetch tool.

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 the core action and followed by the single most important variant flag. Nothing is padded or redundant here.

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 annotations and a fully described schema carrying the load, the description only needs to convey the read scope and the jobs option, which it does. A note on the caching behavior of fresh or on error cases would make it complete for an openWorld network tool.

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 every parameter is already documented, and the description largely restates include_jobs rather than adding syntax or constraints beyond the schema's "Include up to 100 jobs and their steps". Baseline 3 applies; the cache-bypass semantics of fresh are left to the schema.

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?

"Read one workflow run" states a specific verb and resource, and the singular "one" implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list tool github_workflow_runs. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must still infer the split.

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?

The description gives one concrete conditional (set include_jobs=true to fetch jobs), which is genuinely useful usage guidance. However, it never says when to pick this over github_workflow_runs or when_not to request jobs, and no prerequisites (e.g. run must exist) are mentioned.

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