Retrieve GitHub repository activity metrics—stars, forks, and open issues—with ETag-based conditional requests to reduce redundant API calls.
GitHub repository activity metrics, stars, forks, and open issues with conditional ETag HTTP 304 caching.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | Repository name (e.g. 'fastapi') | |
| owner | Yes | Repository owner or organization (e.g. 'fastapi') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing conditional ETag HTTP 304 caching, which is not present in the annotations. It does not explain what happens when a 304 occurs, whether authentication or rate limits apply, or how errors are surfaced.
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?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler, and the key metrics are front-loaded. It could be marginally sharper by leading with an action verb, but it is structurally sound and appropriately sized.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with complete schema descriptions and safety annotations, the definition covers the essential purpose and adds the notable ETag caching behavior. Remaining gaps such as authentication expectations and rate-limit handling are minor for this level of complexity, though they would be useful for a public GitHub API tool.
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 100%, and both parameters are documented with examples ('fastapi'). The description does not add format details or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly identifies the resource (a GitHub repository) and the specific data returned: activity metrics, stars, forks, and open issues. It is unambiguous against the sibling tools, which cover unrelated domains, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb such as 'fetch'.
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 stated metrics and the required owner/repo parameters, so an agent can infer that this tool is for inspecting a specific repository. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool, no prerequisites such as authentication needs, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.