github-fetcher

GitHub workflows

github_workflows

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists GitHub Actions workflows in a repository, including disabled and legacy workflows, so you can inspect automation status and configuration before making changes.

Instructions

List GitHub Actions workflows in a repository, including disabled and legacy workflows.

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_workflows"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number, starting at 1
`repo`	Yes	Repository in owner/name form
`fresh`	No	Bypass the local cache
`per_page`	No	Items per page, default 20

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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description's one genuine addition is that results include disabled and legacy workflows, which prevents a false assumption of active-only listings, but it says nothing about pagination limits or the caching behavior implied by the 'fresh' parameter.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource and the notable inclusivity caveat with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, an output schema is unnecessary and the description covers scope plus the disabled/legacy nuance. Only the absence of pagination guidance for a paged endpoint keeps it from a 5.

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 all four parameters (repo format, page, per_page default, fresh cache bypass) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('GitHub Actions workflows') scoped to a repository. The resource is clearly distinct from sibling tools like github_workflow_runs or github_workflow_run, though it never names an alternative to reinforce that boundary.

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 enumerating workflow definitions rather than runs, but the description never states when to pick it over github_workflow_runs or github_workflow_run, nor any prerequisites such as repository access.

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