Skip to main content
Glama
dazeb

GitHub Mapper MCP Server

by dazeb
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one maps repository structures, while the other handles authentication. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool based on the task.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    The tools use a mixed naming convention: 'map-github-repo' follows a verb-noun pattern with hyphens, while 'set-github-token' uses a verb-noun pattern but with a different structure. This inconsistency in style (hyphenated vs. standard verb_noun) reduces predictability, though both are readable.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a GitHub-related domain, which typically involves operations like creating, updating, or deleting repositories, issues, or pull requests. The limited scope may hinder comprehensive agent workflows, as core functionalities are missing.

    Completeness2/5

    The server covers authentication and repository mapping but lacks essential GitHub operations such as CRUD for repositories, issues, or pull requests. This creates significant gaps that will likely cause agent failures when attempting common tasks like creating an issue or fetching repository details beyond structure.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 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

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Map' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify what 'summary information' includes, whether authentication is needed, rate limits, error conditions, or how the mapping is performed (e.g., depth, file types included). The description is too vague about the tool's behavior.

    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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

    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 no annotations, no output schema, and a description that lacks behavioral details, this is incomplete for a tool that presumably analyzes repository structure. The description doesn't explain what 'summary information' means, how results are returned, or any constraints. For a tool that likely interacts with external APIs, this leaves significant gaps.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'repoUrl' with its format. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (no format examples, validation rules, or usage context). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 action ('Map') and resource ('GitHub repository structure'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'set-github-token' (which appears to be for authentication configuration rather than repository analysis), so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.

    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. There's no mention of prerequisites (like authentication), comparison to other repository analysis tools, or limitations. The sibling tool 'set-github-token' suggests authentication might be required, but this isn't addressed.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the authentication purpose without detailing behavioral traits. It doesn't disclose if this is a one-time setup, if it persists across sessions, what permissions the token needs, or potential side effects like overwriting existing tokens.

    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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

    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?

    For an authentication tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the authentication mechanism, how the token is stored/used, error handling, or what happens after setting the token, leaving critical context gaps.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'token' parameter fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as token format requirements or scopes needed, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

    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 action ('Set') and the resource ('GitHub Personal Access Token for authentication'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'map-github-repo' or explain how this token setting relates to other GitHub operations, keeping it from a perfect score.

    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, prerequisites, or context. It doesn't mention if this is for initial setup, token updates, or how it interacts with the sibling 'map-github-repo' tool, leaving usage unclear.

    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

MCP-Github-Mapper MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

MCP-Github-Mapper MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/dazeb/MCP-Github-Mapper'

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