mcp-github-enterprise

List self-hosted runners

list_self_hosted_runners

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists an organization's self-hosted GitHub Actions runners with name, status, labels, and busy state to audit where CI executes, especially Kubernetes runners managed by actions-runner-controller.

Instructions

List the organization's self-hosted Actions runners (name, status, labels, busy). Use with runner groups to audit where CI executes — e.g. Kubernetes runners managed by actions-runner-controller.

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": "list_self_hosted_runners"
  }
}

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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured fields. The description adds that this is org-scoped and read-oriented, but says nothing about pagination, result caps, or rate-limit behavior that openWorldHint implies for an org-wide listing.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource followed by the audit use case. The actions-runner-controller example earns its place by clarifying the runner type, though the sentence could be tightened slightly.

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 single-parameter read-only listing with rich annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the useful missing piece: which fields come back. Only pagination and result-limit behavior remain unexplained, which is a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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% and the single 'org' parameter is documented there, including the GHE_ORG_ALLOWLIST constraint. The description does not restate or enrich that constraint, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('List the organization's self-hosted Actions runners') and even enumerates the returned fields (name, status, labels, busy). It implicitly separates itself from list_runner_groups by framing groups as a companion rather than the same thing, but it never states the distinction explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'Use with runner groups to audit where CI executes' gives a concrete scenario for reaching for this tool, plus a representative example of the runner type it surfaces. It stops short of saying when not to use it or naming an alternative for already-known runner details.

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