mcp-github-enterprise

Get Actions permissions

get_actions_permissions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetches an organization's GitHub Actions policy, showing which repositories may run Actions and which actions are allowed. Use it to audit org-level Actions permissions.

Instructions

Fetch the organization's GitHub Actions policy (which repos may run Actions, and which actions are allowed).

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": {
      "org": "<org>"
    },
    "name": "get_actions_permissions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`org`	Yes	Organization login (must be within GHE_ORG_ALLOWLIST when that is set)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the content of the policy being read, with no note on permissions required, the effect of GHE_ORG_ALLOWLIST, or whether a policy may be unset/absent when returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a clarifying parenthetical; every clause adds information and nothing is padded or redundant.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description states enough about what the returned policy contains for an agent to decide to call it. The minor gap is the absence of any indication of what the response looks like when Actions are disabled or the policy is unset.

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% for the single 'org' parameter, including the GHE_ORG_ALLOWLIST constraint, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description contributes nothing about the parameter and does not, for instance, clarify whether the org login is case-sensitive or must match an allowlisted value.

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 names a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('the organization's GitHub Actions policy') and clarifies the payload with a parenthetical about which repos may run Actions and which actions are allowed. That clearly separates it from siblings like get_actions_cache_usage or list_workflows, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs the org's Actions enablement/allowlist policy. There is no explicit when-to-use framing versus siblings such as get_actions_cache_usage, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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