Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
zenhub-mcp

zenhub-mcp

by derekbar90
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

zenhub_get_repositories_by_github_ids

Retrieve ZenHub repository information by providing GitHub IDs. Enables bulk lookup of multiple repositories at once.

Instructions

Lookup repositories by their GitHub IDs

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": {
      "github_ids": "<github_ids>"
    },
    "name": "zenhub_get_repositories_by_github_ids"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
github_idsYesArray of GitHub repository IDs

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.8

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'lookup', which implies a read operation, but it lacks details on side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or error scenarios. The description is too minimal to provide adequate transparency.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action. It is concise and contains no unnecessary words. However, it might be too sparse to fully guide the agent, but it earns its place as a clear statement of purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not specify what is returned (e.g., full repository details or just identifiers). An agent might need to infer the output format from 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 already describes the 'github_ids' parameter as an array of numbers with a description. The tool's description adds no additional meaning beyond that. Since schema_description_coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('lookup'), resource ('repositories'), and the lookup key ('by their GitHub IDs'), making it easy for an agent to understand what the tool does and how it differs from sibling tools like 'zenhub_get_repositories' or 'zenhub_get_repository_details'.

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 (e.g., 'zenhub_get_repositories' or 'zenhub_get_repository_details'), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage context from the name alone.

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