GitHub Actions MCP Server

github_list_repositories

List GitHub repositories accessible with your current token. Get name, description, language, stars, visibility, and last update, with optional filter by ownership.

Instructions

List GitHub repositories accessible with the current token. Returns name, description, language, stars, visibility, and last update time.

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": "github_list_repositories"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	No	Filter repositories: 'owner' = repos you own, 'member' = repos you're a member of, 'all' = both	owner

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the accessible scope and the specific return fields, which gives useful behavioral context. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or that it's a read-only operation explicitly, but 'List' implies no side effects.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and then lists the return fields, making it highly efficient and scannable.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description lists the return fields, which is helpful, but it doesn't mention the default type behavior or pagination. Given its simplicity, it is nearly complete but could be more explicit about how the 'type' filter affects results.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'type' parameter, including its enum values and default. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 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 verb 'List' and the resource 'GitHub repositories', and adds the scope 'accessible with the current token'. It also lists the returned fields, making it distinct from sibling tools that focus on workflows and deployments.

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 the tool is for listing repositories available to the authenticated token, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling tools or any exclusions, so it misses the full 5.

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

Deploy Server