Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@cloud9-labs/mcp-github

@cloud9-labs/mcp-github

by cloud9-labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

github_get_repo

Retrieve comprehensive details for a GitHub repository by providing the owner and repository name. Access metadata like description, stars, forks, and more.

Instructions

Get details of a specific repository

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "github_get_repo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesRepository name
ownerYesRepository owner username

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get details' without mentioning authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior for nonexistent repos, or the response structure. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 a single, concise sentence that clearly communicates the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter, though it lacks some helpful detail without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should explain what 'details' means or what the response includes. It does not, leaving the agent to infer the return format. For a simple tool, this is a significant gap.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters ('Repository name' and 'Repository owner username'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to compensate.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific repository'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_list_repos or github_search_repos. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from similar getter tools (e.g., github_get_issue, github_get_file_content), though the repo focus is evident.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of using github_list_repos for listing multiple repositories or github_search_repos for finding repositories, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools