Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GitHub Releases MCP Server

GitHub Releases MCP Server

by SLineroDev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

github_repo_readme

Fetch the README file from a GitHub repository and return its plain text content to access documentation and package names in monorepos.

Instructions

Fetch the README file for a GitHub repository and return its plain text content. Useful for discovering package names and documentation in monorepos.

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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "github_repo_readme"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesGitHub repository name
ownerYesGitHub repository owner

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses it returns plain text, but does not mention error cases (e.g., missing README) or rate limits. Adequate for a simple read 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 sentences, front-loaded with action and value, no redundancy.

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?

Simple tool with no output schema; description covers primary function and use case. Could mention error behavior but not critical.

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 description adds no extra parameter details. Adds context about monorepo use but not beyond schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'README file for a GitHub repository', clearly distinguishes from siblings which deal with releases and packages.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

States it is useful for discovering package names and documentation in monorepos, providing clear context. Does not mention when not to use or alternative tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools