github-talent-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are mostly distinct, but bulk_score, rank_candidates, and score_against_jd have overlapping ranking/scoring functionality that could confuse an agent. compare_candidates also overlaps with these for small sets. Still, each tool has a clear primary purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., bulk_score, compare_candidates, generate_outreach). No mixing of conventions.
Tool Count5/5
8 tools is well-scoped for a developer sourcing server, covering search, enrichment, comparison, ranking, and outreach without being excessive.
Completeness4/5
Covers the main workflow (search, enrich, compare, rank, message), but lacks a direct topic-based search and saving/follow-up tools, which are minor gaps.
Average 4.2/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 3.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 36 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The description only states the basic function without transparency on limitations or side effects.
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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose, a format note, and args. Every sentence is essential and front-loaded. No waste.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks information on authentication, error scenarios, and usage context, making it adequately complete but not thorough.
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 description adds meaning for the 'repo' parameter by specifying accepted formats, but for 'limit' it only repeats the default from the schema. With 0% schema coverage, more parameter details would be beneficial.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves top contributors for lead generation, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_developers or get_developer_profile by focusing on repository contributors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for lead generation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool enriches profiles and scores them, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., if external API calls are made), authentication requirements, or any rate limiting. The description is adequate but lacks depth.
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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the main purpose, followed by a brief process summary and then bullet-point-like parameter explanations. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.
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?
Given that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description reasonably explains the output: sorted candidates with strengths, gaps, and reasoning. It covers the key aspects of the tool's behavior and parameters. However, it could be more complete by clarifying what 'enriches each profile' entails or how the scoring accounts for activity and relevance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by defining each parameter: usernames as 'GitHub usernames to evaluate', job_description as 'The role description to rank candidates against', and top_n with default 10. These definitions are clear and add value beyond the schema's type and title information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Rank GitHub users against a job description.' It also explains the process: enriches profiles, scores activity+relevance, returns sorted candidates with strengths, gaps, and reasoning. This effectively communicates the core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'score_against_jd' or 'compare_candidates'.
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 provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'score_against_jd' or 'compare_candidates'. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The user is left to infer usage from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not mention safety traits (read-only, destructive, auth needs). However, it describes outputs and operation, which is adequate for a scoring tool.
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 concise with three purposeful sentences plus a structured args list. No redundant information.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers key aspects: purpose, differentiation, and return contents. Could mention prerequisites like having candidate profiles.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose (job description, usernames, top_n) beyond the schema's basic type and title.
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 clearly states the tool scores candidates against a job description with per-dimension breakdown. It distinguishes itself from rank_candidates by contrasting keyword matching with structured requirement extraction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides when-to-use versus an alternative (rank_candidates), but does not cover exclusions or scenarios where this tool should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It discloses enrichment, ranking, and output format, but does not mention side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it is read-only. Adequate but with gaps.
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 concise, front-loaded with the main action, and uses a structured Args format. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.
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?
Given the complexity and that an output schema exists, the description adequately explains return format and main parameters. However, it lacks details on error handling, scoring methodology, and sorting behavior, which would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by describing each parameter: usernames (max 100), job_description (optional), export_format (markdown/csv), top_n (default 100). Adds constraints and enum guidance not in schema.
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 clearly states it scores a batch of GitHub usernames and returns a ranked table. It specifies batch processing and enrichment with activity score or JD fit, distinguishing it from siblings like score_against_jd which likely handles single users.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for batch scoring (explicitly says 'batch') but does not explicitly name when to use this versus alternatives like rank_candidates or score_against_jd. It provides clear context but no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that three variants are created, references candidate's repos/contributions/tech stack, and warns about placeholders if company_name/sender_name are not provided. This covers key behavioral traits.
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-structured with sections and front-loads the purpose. The all-caps warning is prominent. It could be slightly more concise, but it remains readable and informative.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral notes comprehensively for a 5-parameter tool without annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It provides clear explanations for all five parameters, including defaults and the behavior if omitted (e.g., placeholders for company_name and sender_name). The tone parameter specifies allowed values.
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 clearly states it generates personalized recruiter outreach messages for a GitHub candidate, creating three message variants. This is distinct from sibling tools like bulk_score or search_developers, which serve different functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs to ask the user for company_name and sender_name before calling the tool, providing clear usage context. It does not, however, specify when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes what the tool shows and does (scoring, picking winners), but does not mention data sources, side effects, or whether it fetches data. No annotations to contradict.
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?
Short, front-loaded, every sentence adds value. Bullet-like list and Args section are clear and efficient.
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?
Covers all necessary aspects: what is compared, optional JD, output format implied by attributes. Output schema exists, so no need to detail return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds meaning beyond schema: specifies usernames must be 2-5, job_description is optional. The schema only has titles, so description compensates for 0% coverage.
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?
Clearly states it compares 2-5 GitHub candidates side-by-side, listing displayed attributes (languages, activity, stars, strengths, gaps) and optional job description scoring. Distinguishes from siblings like score_against_jd and rank_candidates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit use case (comparing multiple candidates with optional JD) and sibling context, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to specific alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It details the return content including an activity score with per-dimension breakdown. However, it does not mention potential side effects (none expected), authentication needs, or rate limits, which would increase transparency.
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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose, a bulleted list of return contents, and an Args line. Every sentence provides value with no redundancy or clutter.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema and the description already enumerates the returned data (languages, stars, commit activity, etc.), the description is complete. It includes the unique activity score range and breakdown, covering all key aspects without needing further elaboration.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explicitly lists the 'username' parameter with a clear explanation: 'GitHub username to analyze'. This adds essential meaning beyond the type 'string' in the schema.
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 starts with 'Get enriched GitHub developer profile with activity scoring', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_developers' (search) and 'rank_candidates' (ranking), as this tool focuses on a single enriched profile.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for individual developer profiles by listing single username and rich return data. While no explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' is stated, the context from sibling tool names suggests this is for detailed single-profile analysis, not for bulk or comparative operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses output format (usernames sorted by followers) and limit constraints. Lacks details on case sensitivity or matching behavior, but overall adequate.
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?
Front-loaded with purpose, then results, usage guidance, and args. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Well structured.
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?
Given 5 parameters, no required ones, and output schema exists, description covers all needed aspects: filters, results, usage guidance, and alternatives. Complete for a search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description explains all five parameters with types and examples (e.g., languages as array of strings, location string, default and max for limit), adding meaning beyond schema.
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 clearly states the tool searches GitHub developers by technical and geographic filters, returns usernames sorted by followers, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_repo_contributors and get_developer_profile.
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?
Explicitly provides when to use and when not to use: for topic-based sourcing, recommends get_repo_contributors instead, and for full enrichment, suggests get_developer_profile.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![github-talent-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/carolinacherry/github-talent-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/carolinacherry/github-talent-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![github-talent-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/carolinacherry/github-talent-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/carolinacherry/github-talent-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/carolinacherry/github-talent-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server