mcp-trial

get_repo

Retrieve key GitHub repository details including description, star count, primary language, and last push date by providing owner and repo names.

Instructions

Get summary info for a GitHub repository: description, stars, language, last push.

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": "get_repo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes
`owner`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. 'Get summary info' conveys a read-only operation and names the returned fields, but it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, error behavior, or edge cases like repositories without a last push.

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, tightly structured sentence front-loads the action and resource, then enumerates concrete outputs. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 two-parameter read-only metadata tool, the description is largely complete: it states the operation, target resource, and output fields. A note about when to prefer recent_commits would improve it, but that gap is already reflected in the usage guidelines score.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has no parameter descriptions and the description does not define 'owner' or 'repo' beyond the general reference to a GitHub repository. The parameter names are fairly self-evident, but the description adds no meaningful semantic depth.

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?

Begins with 'Get summary info for a GitHub repository' which is a specific verb plus resource, and lists concrete fields (description, stars, language, last push) that clearly distinguish it from the sibling tool recent_commits.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus recent_commits, nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions. Usage context must be inferred from the word 'summary' and the listed output fields.

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

Deploy Server