mcp-saas-toolkit

github_get_repo_info

Retrieve detailed GitHub repository information including statistics, languages, recent commits, and contributor count.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a GitHub repository including stats, languages, recent commits, and contributor count.

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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "github_get_repo_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner (user or org)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('Get') and lists some returned data, but does not mention potential errors (e.g., private repos), rate limits, or required permissions. The brief list of returned fields adds some value but is not exhaustive.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loads the main purpose. It efficiently communicates the tool's function and the type of information returned, though it could be slightly more precise.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of the tool's return content (stats, languages, commits, contributors). While not exhaustive, it offers enough context for an agent to understand what information will be retrieved. For a simple tool, this is generally adequate.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for 'owner' and 'repo'. The description adds no additional semantic meaning for the parameters, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves detailed information about a GitHub repository, specifying the resource (repository) and action (get info). It lists specific content (stats, languages, recent commits, contributor count), making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like github_list_repos which list repositories, not details of a specific one.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without specifying when it is appropriate (e.g., for a single repo's full details) or when to use other tools (e.g., github_list_repos for listing all repos).

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