@cloud9-labs/mcp-github

github_search_repos

Search GitHub repositories by keyword and refine results with sort options for stars, forks, or recency, plus pagination control.

Instructions

Search for repositories on GitHub

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_repos"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number
`sort`	No	Sort field
`order`	No	Sort order
`query`	Yes	Search query (e.g., 'react stars:>1000')
`per_page`	No	Results per page

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search for repositories on GitHub' and gives no information about pagination, rate limits, or what the response contains. The read-only nature of search is implied but not 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 sentence with zero waste, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is so sparse that it borders on under-specification, lacking any additional context or structure that would make it truly effective.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, but the rich schema descriptions cover parameter semantics. However, the description gives no indication of return values or broader usage context. It is adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps for an agent expecting more behavioral or result information.

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 has 100% description coverage for its 5 parameters, including query format and enum values for sort/order. The description adds no additional meaning 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.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Search for repositories on GitHub.' It clearly indicates what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tool github_search_code, relying on the name to convey the focus on repositories rather than code.

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, what scenarios it's best for, or when to use alternatives. It simply states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage without any exclusions or contextual hints.

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

Deploy Server