mcp-github-enterprise

Get repository

get_repository

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a single GitHub Enterprise repository by organization and repo name, including security and analysis settings such as secret scanning, push protection, and advanced security.

Instructions

Fetch a single repository including its security_and_analysis settings (secret scanning, push protection, advanced security).

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>",
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "get_repository"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`org`	Yes	Organization login (must be within GHE_ORG_ALLOWLIST when that is set)
`repo`	Yes	Repository name (without the org/ prefix)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds useful content scope by naming the security_and_analysis payload, but says nothing about not-found behavior, allowlist enforcement, or response shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause carries information. It is perhaps slightly sparse for the scope it covers.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, this is nearly complete — the agent knows what it fetches and what it gets back. Only edge-case behavior (missing repo, allowlist rejection) is left unstated.

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 description adds nothing about the org/repo parameters; it only clarifies which data fields come back. With 100% schema coverage, the schema already carries the parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a single repository') and clarifies scope with 'single', which implicitly distinguishes it from list_repositories. It also names the notable payload (security_and_analysis settings), though it never names the sibling it competes with.

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 implied by 'single repository' — use when you need one repo's details — but there is no explicit when-to-use versus list_repositories or get_branch_protection, and no prerequisites or failure conditions stated.

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