Find GitHub repositories by search query with pagination controls to browse results efficiently.
Search for GitHub repositories
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query (see GitHub search syntax) | |
| page | No | Page number for pagination (default: 1) | |
| perPage | No | Number of results per page (default: 30, max: 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'search' but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., repository metadata), rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior beyond what's in the schema. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a search tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling search tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, differentiate from other searches, or cover behavioral aspects like rate limits, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (query, page, perPage) with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying GitHub as the platform, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search for GitHub repositories' clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('GitHub repositories'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling search tools like 'search_code' or 'search_issues', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_code' or 'search_issues', nor does it mention any prerequisites or contextual constraints. It's a basic statement of function without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.