GitHub MCP Server — AutomateHub

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Verificar conexión con GitHub

health_check

Verify GitHub connectivity and diagnose authentication or permission issues by showing the authenticated user, token scopes, remaining rate-limit requests, and tool usage metrics.

Instructions

Verifica que el servidor puede conectarse a GitHub: muestra el usuario autenticado, los permisos (scopes) del token, cuántas solicitudes quedan disponibles y métricas de uso de las tools. Usala si el usuario pregunta si la conexión funciona, o para diagnosticar errores de permisos o autenticación.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "health_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it reveals that the tool performs a live connectivity check and names the four categories of information returned. It stops short of stating whether the check itself consumes rate-limit quota or what happens when connectivity fails (error vs. degraded payload).

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the first front-loads what is verified and reported, the second delivers the usage conditions. No restating of the name or title.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the returned fields, which largely substitutes for one. For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool this is nearly complete; only failure-mode behavior is left unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless probe and adds no misleading signature information.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: verifies server connectivity to GitHub and enumerates exactly what it reports (authenticated user, token scopes, remaining requests, tool usage metrics). It is unmistakably distinct from every sibling, which are all create_/list_/close_ operations on repos, issues and commits.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions: use it when the user asks whether the connection works, or to diagnose permission or authentication errors. No when-not guidance or named alternative is offered, but no sibling overlaps this diagnostic role, so the omission is minor.

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

Deploy Server