Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
micro-mcp

micro-mcp

by microdotdo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List GitHub deployment bindings

micro_github_bindings
Read-onlyIdempotent

List active GitHub bindings for repositories, refs, environments, workflows, and immutable identities to understand current configuration.

Instructions

List active repository, ref, environment, workflow, and immutable identity bindings.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "micro_github_bindings"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
jsonNo
stderrYes
stdoutYes
commandYes
exitCodeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'active' qualifier and enumerates binding categories, but it does not disclose extra behavioral details such as ordering, pagination, or external data freshness.

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 filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to defining the tool's scope.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the zero-parameter schema, strong annotation coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the one-line description is sufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. Nothing essential about the tool's behavior or scope is missing.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The description still adds value by specifying exactly which kinds of bindings the empty call returns.

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 concrete verb, 'List', and names a specific resource: 'active repository, ref, environment, workflow, and immutable identity bindings.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from mutation-style siblings like micro_github_link and micro_github_revoke.

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 intended use is implied by the verb 'List' and the unique 'bindings' resource, so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as micro_deployments or micro_github_link, and no when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools