GitHub Actions MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target clearly distinct resources (workflow definitions, workflow runs, repo parsing). However, trigger-workflow and trigger-repository-dispatch can both start workflows, and get-workflow vs get-workflow-run could be confused without reading descriptions carefully.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent lower-case hyphenated verb-object pattern, such as list-workflows, trigger-workflow, and cancel-workflow-run. There is no mixing of naming conventions or vague verbs.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is a well-scoped size for a GitHub Actions-focused server. Each tool serves a distinct operational purpose without unnecessary bloat or redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The server covers core workflow discovery, triggering, run status, and cancellation. Missing operations like listing all workflow runs, re-running workflows, or fetching logs create minor gaps, but the main lifecycle is reasonably represented.
Average 3.4/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state what details are returned, whether authentication is required, or any other behavioral traits such as response format or error conditions.
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 sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, 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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should compensate by explaining what 'details' includes. It does not mention the return payload, or how this differs from getting a workflow run. The parameter documentation is complete, but the behavioral and output context are missing.
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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds the phrase 'by ID or filename', which aligns with the workflow_id parameter description but does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 details' and the resource 'specific GitHub Actions workflow', and specifies the lookup method by ID or filename. It is distinct from sibling tools like get-workflow-run or list-workflows, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list-workflows or get-workflow-run. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
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?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says an event is triggered. It does not disclose that the call is fire-and-forget, returns no workflow result, requires appropriate repository permissions, or that it may succeed even if no workflow listens for the event type.
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 nine-word sentence with no filler and the key information front-loaded. It is efficiently written, though slightly under-specified; the conciseness itself is not the problem.
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 low-complexity tool, the schema covers parameter semantics well, but the description omits the fire-and-forget behavior and provides no guidance for choosing between this and the sibling workflow-dispatch tool. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps around usage context and async semantics.
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 descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), including a helpful note that event_type must match on.repository_dispatch.types in the workflow file. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Trigger') plus a precise resource ('repository_dispatch event') and states the intended outcome ('to start a workflow'). It is clear about what the tool does, and the event type name distinguishes it from the sibling create-workflow-dispatch, though that differentiation relies on naming rather than explicit contrast.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling create-workflow-dispatch, and it mentions no exclusions or alternative conditions. An agent must infer that this is for workflows listening on 'repository_dispatch' events with no explanation of how that differs from workflow_dispatch.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a write/async trigger but does not state whether it waits for completion, requires workflow_dispatch permission, has rate limits, or whether a run is returned. These are material gaps for a mutation tool.
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 one precise sentence with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description should cover trigger behavior, expectations, and outcomes. It only covers the action itself, leaving the agent without details about side effects, return values, or prerequisites beyond the parameter schema.
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 the schema already documents all five parameters and their meanings. The description adds no parameter-specific information, meriting the baseline score of 3.
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 names a specific verb ('Trigger'), a resource ('GitHub Actions workflow'), and the mechanism ('via workflow_dispatch event'). This cleanly differentiates it from trigger-repository-dispatch without needing to inspect the schema.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like trigger-repository-dispatch, cancel-workflow-run, or list-workflows. The description only states what it does, leaving selection entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval and the latest-vs-specific scope, but it does not explicitly state that it does not mutate or cancel anything, nor describe response or error behavior. The description is not misleading, but it is minimal.
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 concise sentence with no filler. The essential distinction between latest and specific is front-loaded, and every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple status-read tool, the description combined with the complete schema is largely sufficient. The tool has no output schema, so the agent only learns that the result is a 'status', but the core selection logic and optional filters are adequately covered by the schema and description.
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 five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The phrase 'latest or a specific workflow run' adds useful context for run_id's optionality, but the description does not meaningfully expand on status or workflow_id beyond what the schema already says.
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 names a concrete verb and resource: it gets a GitHub Actions workflow run's status, with the option of latest or a specific run. This separates it from mutation siblings like cancel-workflow-run and trigger-workflow, although it does not explicitly contrast with get-workflow.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-workflow or list-workflows. The intended use is inferable, but there are no exclusions or explicit routing hints to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, covering the destructive nature. The description adds only the 'running' state constraint, which is useful but does not explain irreversibility, permission requirements, or consequences. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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?
A single direct sentence with no filler. The verb and target are front-loaded, making the purpose immediately clear.
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 simple three-parameter cancellation operation, the schema and destructiveHint cover the essential arguments and risk profile. However, the description omits usage context, validity conditions, and any indication of the response behavior. It is adequate but not complete.
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?
All three parameters are fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage and all are required. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but the schema already carries the semantic weight. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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: 'Cancel a running GitHub Actions workflow.' The action is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling tools like trigger-workflow or get-workflow-run. The minor use of 'workflow' rather than 'workflow run' is acceptable given the tool name.
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?
Provides no guidance about when this tool should be used versus alternatives, when cancellation is valid, or whether there are prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage signal is the word 'running,' which is not elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately conveys a read-only list operation but does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication needs, or whether the response includes workflow metadata only. This is acceptable for a simple list but leaves some behavior implicit.
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, clear sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.
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?
For a simple listing tool with fully documented parameters, the description is nearly complete. It could be improved by noting that this tool lists all workflows, not a specific one, and possibly pointing to get-workflow for single-workflow lookup, but nothing critical is missing.
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 the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, aligning with the baseline of 3 for fully covered schemas.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('GitHub Actions workflows') and scope ('for a repository'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get-workflow and get-workflow-run by indicating it returns all workflows for the repo.
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?
The description implies this tool is for enumerating workflows, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of siblings such as get-workflow or list alternatives. No exclusions or explicit routing guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the transformation from input to output, but does not mention edge cases such as invalid formats, non-GitHub URLs, or error behavior. For a simple parsing utility this is acceptable but not fully transparent.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, input format, and output. There is no redundant content, and every word earns its place.
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?
For a one-parameter parsing utility with no output schema, the description gives the essential information: input format and structured output. It could mention validation/error behavior, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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%, and the description mirrors that single parameter without adding much extra detail. It does clarify that the output is owner and repo fields, but the parameter itself is already well-documented in the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('parse') and resource ('GitHub URL or owner/repo string') and states the output ('structured owner and repo fields'). It is clearly distinct from the sibling workflow-management tools.
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?
The description clearly defines the tool's input and purpose, making it obvious when to use it: when a GitHub identifier needs to be decomposed into owner and repo. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling tools are unrelated workflow operations, so no real ambiguity exists.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![github-actions-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lockround/github-actions-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lockround/github-actions-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![github-actions-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lockround/github-actions-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lockround/github-actions-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/lockround/github-actions-mcp'

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