github-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose. Despite some conceptual overlap between create_feature_branch and prepare_feature_workflow, the latter includes additional steps (status check, update main) that differentiate them. All other tools are uniquely scoped.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores, using descriptive verbs like create, prepare, pull, push, and inspect. No mixing of conventions or vague terms.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools is an ideal number for a focused Git workflow server. Each tool covers a necessary step without redundancy or bloat.
Completeness4/5
The set covers the core feature workflow: status, pull, branch creation, push, and PR creation. Missing operations like branch deletion or listing PRs are minor gaps that don't break the primary workflow.
Average 3.7/5 across 6 of 6 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 bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'validating safety constraints' but does not specify what those constraints are, what happens if the branch already exists, or whether the branch is checked out locally. This lack of detail leaves the agent unaware of potential side effects or failure 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, 13-word sentence that immediately communicates the core purpose. No extraneous information. 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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context on behavior, such as whether the branch is automatically checked out, how safety constraints are validated, and what success/failure looks like. The current description is insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters and no structured behavioral hints.
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 four parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds limited new semantic value. The description reinforces the baseBranch parameter by saying 'from the base branch', but does not go beyond what the schema already provides. A score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced understanding.
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 verb 'Create', the resource 'feature branch', and the action 'from the base branch after validating safety constraints'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_create_pull_request and github_push_feature_branch by focusing on local branch creation and safety validation.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for creating a new feature branch but lacks guidance on scenarios where sibling tools like github_prepare_feature_workflow might be more appropriate, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use this tool.
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 full burden. It mentions 'ready-for-review' but does not disclose whether the PR is created as draft, required permissions, or rate limits. For a mutation tool, more behavior context (e.g., side effects, authentication) is needed.
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?
Single sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with key information. No redundant or wasted words.
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?
No output schema or annotations exist. The description does not explain return values, error scenarios, or workflow integration with sibling tools. For a 5-parameter tool in a complex workflow, it lacks completeness.
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% (all five parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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?
Description clearly states the action ('create') and resource ('pull request'), specifying it is from a feature branch into the base branch. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_create_feature_branch which creates branches.
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 the feature branch must already be pushed ('from a pushed feature branch'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_push_feature_branch or github_create_feature_branch. Missing explicit exclusions or preferred contexts.
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 full burden. It discloses 'set upstream' and 'refuses main/master', but does not cover other behavioral traits like error handling on protected branches or confirmation of success.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately communicates the core action and a key constraint.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It covers the main action and a constraint but lacks details on return values, error handling for other protected branches, or multi-branch scenarios.
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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides (defaults, minLength).
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?
Description clearly states the tool pushes a feature branch and sets upstream, with a specific constraint ('Refuses main/master'). Verb 'push' and resource 'feature branch' are distinct from sibling tools like 'create' or 'pull'.
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 feature branches by explicitly refusing main/master, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_pull_main or github_create_feature_branch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the three-step operation (fetch, switch, fast-forward pull). However, it does not disclose potential outcomes like conflicts if fast-forward is not possible, or how local changes are handled.
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?
Single sentence, no redundant words. Communicates the essential operation efficiently.
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?
Covers the core action adequately. Lacks prerequisites (e.g., repo must be cloned, remote must exist) and post-conditions, but for a simple git operation it is fairly 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond naming 'base branch' and 'configured remote', which are already in the schema. 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Fetch, switch to the base branch, and fast-forward pull') and the resource (local repo at repoPath). It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_repo_status or github_create_feature_branch by specifying the exact git 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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., github_repo_status for checking state, or github_create_pull_request for opening PRs). The description does not mention prerequisites or excluded scenarios.
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 full burden. It describes the tool as inspecting local repository data, implying a read-only operation with no side effects, but does not explicitly mention that it is non-destructive or whether it requires network access or specific permissions. Adequate but could be more explicit.
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 of 13 words, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. No extraneous information is present, and every word contributes to clarity.
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 inspection tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what is inspected (status, branch, remotes, upstream, allowed roots). It does not describe the return format, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably 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?
The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. The schema already describes the repoPath parameter with similar language ('Path to a local repository inside the configured allowed roots'). With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly enhance understanding.
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 inspects a local Git repository's status, branch, remotes, upstream, and MCP allowed roots. It uses a specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('local Git repository'), and effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on creating or modifying branches and pull requests.
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 usage for inspecting repo status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide alternatives. No guidance on when not to use it is given, though the context is clear from the sibling names.
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 full burden. It lists the main actions (check status, update main, create branch) and exclusions, but lacks details on side effects such as whether it fetches, requires a clean working tree, or how it handles conflicts. This is adequate 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?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for actions and one for exclusions. Every word adds value, and the key information is front-loaded. No unnecessary repetition or 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?
Given the tool's simplicity and full parameter documentation in the schema, the description adequately covers the workflow. It does not describe return values or error conditions, but since there is no output schema, the description is sufficient for a user to understand the tool's behavior.
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 for all four parameters, so the schema already provides parameter semantics. The tool description does not add meaningful information beyond what is in the schema, earning a 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 clearly states the tool checks status, updates main, and creates a new feature branch, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it does not push or create a PR. The verb 'prepare' plus the listed actions and exclusions make the purpose unambiguous.
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 implies usage when you want to prepare a feature branch locally without pushing or creating a PR. It clearly states what the tool does and does not do, offering context for when to use it, but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.
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-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/matiasnjacob/github-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/matiasnjacob/github-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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