Creates a new GitHub repository for the authenticated user, or under a specified organization, with optional privacy, description, and auto-initialization settings.
Create a new GitHub repository for the authenticated user, or under an organization when organization is provided.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| autoInit | No | ||
| isPrivate | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| organization | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state what happens on a name collision, what the defaults are for isPrivate and autoInit, whether the repo is initialized with a README, or what permissions are required to create under an organization. For a mutating, externally-visible operation this is a significant gap.
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?
A single sentence with zero filler, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the organizational scoping clause. Nothing redundant.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description should at minimum cover defaults, failure modes, and required authorization. It covers only which account the repo lands under, leaving the agent unable to predict the created repository's state.
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%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for organization ("under an organization when organization is provided"), but says nothing about name constraints, what autoInit does, whether isPrivate defaults to public, or how the free-text description is used — four of five parameters remain opaque.
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 a new GitHub repository") and clarifies the two ownership scopes: personal vs. organization. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as fork_repository (creating a copy of an existing repo), which would be the natural disambiguation here.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb — an agent would reach for this when a new, empty repo is needed rather than a fork or a listing. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no prerequisites (org membership, token scopes), and no named alternative for creating from an existing repository.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.