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

@cloud9-labs/mcp-github

by cloud9-labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

github_search_code

Search GitHub repositories for code snippets using filters like language, file, and repository to locate specific implementations.

Instructions

Search for code across GitHub repositories

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "github_search_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number
sortNoSort field
orderNoSort order
queryYesSearch query (e.g., 'addClass in:file language:js repo:jquery/jquery')
per_pageNoResults per page

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only states a generic search action. It does not mention pagination, sorting, default result counts, or whether authentication is required, so the agent lacks insight into how the tool behaves.

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 clear sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. While it is brief, it does not waste words, though it could be expanded with useful context.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal and incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination behavior, or how to construct queries, leaving significant gaps in context.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter details beyond the schema, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics for query, page, sort, order, and per_page.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and resource 'code across GitHub repositories', clearly indicating this tool is for code search. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool github_search_repos, which also searches GitHub, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention github_search_repos or any other tool, leaving the agent without context for choosing between code search and repo search.

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