Skip to main content
Glama
hetaoBackend

mcp-github-trending

by hetaoBackend
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have perfectly distinct purposes: one targets trending developers, the other trending repositories. There is no overlap in functionality, and an agent can easily differentiate between them based on the clear resource distinction.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow an identical verb_noun pattern with 'get_github_trending_' prefix, ensuring complete predictability. The naming is highly consistent and readable, with no deviations in style or structure.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for its apparent scope of 'github-trending'. While it covers two key resources, the lack of filtering, sorting, or time-range options limits utility, making the count borderline insufficient for robust trending analysis.

    Completeness3/5

    The server provides basic access to trending developers and repositories, but there are notable gaps. Missing operations include filtering by language, location, or time period, and there is no way to get historical trending data or detailed analytics, which are common needs in this domain.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. It's a read operation implied by 'Get', but details on pagination, error handling, or data freshness are missing.

    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?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects or return values, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves and what results to expect, which is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no structured output info.

    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 schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying filtering for 'trending developers', which aligns with the schema but doesn't enhance understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 'Get trending developers on github' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('trending developers'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_github_trending_repositories' beyond the resource type, which is a minor gap in specificity.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling tool for trending repositories. It lacks any context about scenarios where developers vs. repositories are relevant, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or what 'trending' entails (e.g., based on stars, forks). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

    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?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses minimal words to convey the essential action, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the complexity of a tool that fetches trending data with three parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'trending' means, the return format, any limitations, or how to interpret results. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

    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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all three parameters (language, since, spoken_language). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('trending repositories on github'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_github_trending_developers' by specifying repositories rather than developers. However, it doesn't specify what 'trending' means or the scope (e.g., global vs. user-specific), keeping it from a perfect score.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'get_github_trending_developers' or any other potential tools for GitHub data. There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcp-github-trending MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-github-trending MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/hetaoBackend/mcp-github-trending'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server