GitHub Actions MCP Server

github_watch_workflow

Monitor a GitHub workflow run until it finishes, polling every 10 seconds to return the final status and conclusion, with a 5-minute timeout.

Instructions

Watch a workflow run until it completes (or times out after 5 minutes). Polls every 10 seconds and returns the final status and conclusion.

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_watch_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses specific behavioral details: polls every 10 seconds, times out after 5 minutes, and returns final status and conclusion. This goes beyond a simple 'watch' statement, though it doesn't specify timeout error behavior or whether it's read-only.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes essential operational details in a compact form.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return behavior (final status and conclusion) and the operational constraints (polling, timeout). It is slightly incomplete in not stating what happens on timeout, but is otherwise sufficient for a watch tool with well-documented parameters.

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 three parameters (owner, repo, runId), so the schema already explains them fully. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, warranting the 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 uses a specific verb 'Watch' with a clear resource ('workflow run') and scope ('until it completes'), distinguishing it from a single-fetch tool like github_get_workflow_run. It also mentions the timeout and polling behavior, which makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to wait for a workflow to finish and get the final status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the polling/timeout context makes the usage scenario clear.

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

Deploy Server