GitHub Actions MCP Server

github_get_workflow_run

Retrieve detailed status of a GitHub Actions workflow run, including each job's status, to monitor and troubleshoot CI/CD pipelines.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific workflow run, including its jobs and their statuses.

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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "runId": "<runId>"
    },
    "name": "github_get_workflow_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner
`runId`	Yes	The numeric workflow run ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and adds useful context about jobs and statuses, but it does not mention prerequisites, error behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 (16 words) that front-loads the main action ('Get detailed information') and states the key scope. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff.

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 read tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential return value ('including its jobs and their statuses'). It is reasonably complete given the tool's low complexity, though it could hint at sibling distinctions more explicitly.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for owner, repo, and runId, so the description adds no additional meaning about the parameters. According to the baseline for high schema coverage, this scores a 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a specific workflow run') and adds unique scope by mentioning 'including its jobs and their statuses,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_list_workflow_runs (listing) and github_get_workflow_logs (raw logs).

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 fetching details of a single run (as opposed to listing runs or getting logs), but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks direct guidance such as 'for logs, use github_get_workflow_logs.'

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

Deploy Server