projectpulse-mcp

get_repo_health

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve basic GitHub repository metadata and statistics including stars, forks, language, and open issues to assess repository health and activity.

Instructions

Fetches basic repository metadata and statistics from the public GitHub API.

Side effects: None. This is a strictly read-only operation.
Data sources: Public GitHub REST API (GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}).
Auth requirements: No authentication required for public repositories. Uses configured GitHub token if available.
Rate limits: Subject to standard GitHub API limits (60 requests/hour unauthenticated, 5000 requests/hour authenticated).
Return shape: Returns a JSON object containing specific metadata: full_name (string), description (string), stargazers_count (number), open_issues_count (number), language (string), license (string, SPDX ID), pushed_at (ISO 8601 string), default_branch (string), archived (boolean), and forks_count (number).
Usage guidelines: Use this tool ONLY to retrieve basic raw metadata (like stars, forks, language, and issue counts). DO NOT use this tool for other specific analyses:
- For a computed A-F health score grading, use 'get_health_score' instead.
- For checking CI/CD workflow run statuses, use 'check_ci_status' instead.
- For package vulnerabilities and dependency graph, use 'analyze_dependencies' instead.
- For code security and static analysis, use 'analyze_code_scanning' instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes	GitHub repository name (e.g., 'sdk')
`owner`	Yes	GitHub repository owner (e.g., 'modelcontextprotocol')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`license`	Yes
`archived`	Yes
`language`	Yes
`full_name`	Yes
`pushed_at`	Yes
`description`	Yes
`forks_count`	Yes
`default_branch`	Yes
`stargazers_count`	Yes
`open_issues_count`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.7Sep 5, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "archived": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "default_branch": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "description": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "forks_count": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "full_name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "language": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "license": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "open_issues_count": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "pushed_at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "stargazers_count": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "full_name",
+    "description",
+    "stargazers_count",
+    "open_issues_count",
+    "language",
+    "license",
+    "pushed_at",
+    "default_branch",
+    "archived",
+    "forks_count"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.4Sep 5, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / owner / description

Previous value: -"GitHub repository owner"New value: +"GitHub repository owner (e.g., 'modelcontextprotocol')"

changedInput schema / properties / repo / description

Previous value: -"GitHub repository name"New value: +"GitHub repository name (e.g., 'sdk')"

First observedv1.1.3Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable context: side effects are explicitly none, auth requirements are stated (public repos need no auth, token used if available), rate limits are quantified, and the underlying endpoint is identified. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-organized with the primary purpose front-loaded and the rest in scannable bullet points. However, the 'Return shape' section largely duplicates the output schema, which adds length without new information. The sibling exclusions are valuable and justify the overall length.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description covers data source, auth requirements, rate limits, return shape, and explicit routing to alternatives. Combined with the annotations and output schema, nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both 'owner' and 'repo' parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Fetches') and resource ('basic repository metadata and statistics from the public GitHub API'), clearly identifying what the tool does. The usage guidelines further differentiate it from siblings by noting it returns raw metadata rather than a computed health score.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('ONLY to retrieve basic raw metadata') and when not to, naming each sibling tool and the exact purpose for which it should be used instead. This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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

Deploy Server