Convert local folders into GitHub repositories. This action pushes your code, manages repository visibility, and prepares your project for publishing on platforms like npm or PyPI.
Create the GitHub repo from the folder and push. If it is already this folder's origin, just pushes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dir | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| visibility | No | public | |
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / dir / descriptionRemoved value: -"Project folder (absolute path, or relative to the server's working directory)."Input schema / properties / name / descriptionRemoved value: -"Repo name (without owner)."v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden. It usefully discloses idempotent-ish behavior when the folder is already the origin, but omits that the default visibility is public (a meaningful side effect), that auth via login is likely required, and what happens on name collisions.
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?
Two compact sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is slightly awkwardly worded ("If it is already this folder's origin") but still earns its place.
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?
Placeholder corrected below.
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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It only indirectly gestures at `dir` ("the folder") and `name` ("repo"); `visibility` and `description` are never mentioned, and the public default is left undisclosed.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Create the GitHub repo") plus the accompanying action ("push"). The phrase "from the folder" is slightly vague about whether local git init also occurs, and it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like publish_package or tag_and_release, but the core action is unambiguous.
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 second sentence describes a conditional behavior (already the origin → just push) rather than when to choose this tool over alternatives such as check_names or publish_package. No prerequisites (e.g. login) or when-not-to-use conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.