Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GitHub MCP Server — AutomateHub

GitHub MCP Server — AutomateHub

by gnvidia06-ux
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Listar repositorios

list_repositories

Retrieve repositories owned by the authenticated GitHub user and their organizations, filter by visibility, and sort results to identify exact repository names before other actions.

Instructions

Lista los repositorios del usuario autenticado en GitHub (propios y de organizaciones a las que pertenece). Usala cuando el usuario pregunte qué repos tiene, quiera buscar uno o necesite el nombre exacto de un repo antes de otra acción. Permite filtrar por visibilidad y ordenar. Los resultados se guardan en caché 5 minutos.

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": "list_repositories"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNoCriterio de orden. Por defecto 'updated' (los más recientes primero).updated
perPageNoCantidad máxima de resultados a devolver (1 a 100). Por defecto 30.
visibilityNoFiltrar por visibilidad: 'all', 'public' o 'private'.all

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses result scope and a 5-minute cache — a real behavioral trait an agent should know. However it never states that the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated beyond perPage, or how many repos a default call returns, which matters for a listing tool with no output schema.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by usage triggers and then the cache caveat. No filler, though the caching note is tacked on without explaining its consequence for the agent.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers why and when but says nothing about what a returned repository contains or how the perPage limit interacts with a user who has many repos. Adequate but leaves the agent guessing about result shape.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented with enums, defaults and ranges. The description only restates that visibility filtering and sorting are possible, adding no semantics beyond the schema — the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("Lista los repositorios") and narrows the scope precisely to the authenticated user's own repos plus those of organizations they belong to. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like create_repository or list_issues without opening any schema.

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 triggers: when the user asks what repos they have, wants to search for one, or needs the exact repo name before another action. The last clause is genuinely useful routing guidance toward the create_* siblings. No when-not-to-use or named alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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