MCP OpsBridge

github_get_repo_stats

Fetch GitHub repository stats: stars, forks, open issues, and recent commits. Provide the repo as Owner/repo to access key metrics.

Instructions

Get repository statistics: stars, forks, open issues, recent commits

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_get_repo_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes	Owner/repo format, e.g., vercel/next.js

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like whether authentication is required, what 'recent commits' means (e.g., count or list), or any potential rate limits. The description only restates the tool's purpose without adding context beyond the schema.

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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no superfluous words. It efficiently communicates the core function.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description lists the key statistics but leaves 'recent commits' ambiguous (count? date?). Without an output schema, the return structure is not fully specified. The description is adequate but has gaps about the exact nature of the results.

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%: the only parameter 'repo' has a clear description with an example format. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'repository statistics' and enumerates the covered metrics (stars, forks, open issues, recent commits). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_get_commits, which returns raw commits, and github_list_repos, which lists repositories.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_get_commits or github_get_pull_requests. The description simply states what it does, leaving the choice of tool implicit rather than explicitly directing the agent.

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