Find GitHub repositories by search query and retrieve matching project details. Use this to locate open-source code or specific repositories for your AI workflows.
Search GitHub repositories
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No | Response from the tool |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does 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 'Search GitHub repositories' adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—no mention of authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or return format. It is consistent but does not enhance transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and free of fluff, but it is under-specified. In a single sentence it fails to convey how the search operates or what inputs are expected. It is not a tautology, but it lacks the detail needed to be genuinely useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool. It gives no indication of what the search is based on, how results are returned, or any filtering capability. An agent would struggle to know how to invoke this tool meaningfully, especially given the empty input schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed since there are no parameters to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('search') and resource ('GitHub repositories'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'github-api.getRepo' or 'github-api.listRepoIssues', and it lacks specifics about what kind of search is performed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 does not mention any prerequisites, query formats, or conditions that would select this tool over others. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.