io.github.OpenOSINT/openosint

search_github

Search GitHub by username, email, or keyword to find matching accounts; exact username matches return full profiles, recent repositories, and emails found in commit history.

Instructions

Search GitHub for a username, email, or keyword. For exact username matches: returns full profile, recent repos, and emails discovered from commit history. For other queries: top 5 matching accounts. Optional GITHUB_TOKEN env var raises rate limit from 60 to 5000 req/h. [passive] A few requests to api.github.com.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_github"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes
`json_output`	No	Return result as structured JSON.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.36.1Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses rate-limit behavior, the passive nature of the requests, and the exact return shape for both query modes. It stops short of explicitly confirming read-only/side-effect-free operation or error/pagination behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, branching return behavior, rate-limit option, and request profile. The purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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, and the description adequately explains return values for both query modes, rate limits, and passive request behavior. It is nearly complete for a 2-parameter search tool, though minor details like error handling or json_output interaction are left implicit.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%, with json_output documented in the schema but query left bare. The description compensates by explaining exactly what values the query parameter accepts (username, email, keyword) and how results differ per type, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (GitHub) plus the accepted query types (username, email, keyword). It does not explicitly contrast itself with any of the many sibling search_* tools, so it falls short of a 5 despite being immediately understandable.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Describes what each query type returns and mentions the optional token for rate limits. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling searches like search_dorks_live or search_paste, leaving selection to inference.

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