RepoPilot MCP ist ein kleiner Python Model Context Protocol Server-Bootstrap. Er ist als produktionsreifer Ausgangspunkt für zukünftige GitHub-Repository-Tools eingerichtet, implementiert aber noch keine GitHub-API-Funktionalität.
src/-Paketstruktur
pyproject.toml mit uv-kompatiblen Abhängigkeiten
typisierte Umgebungskonfiguration
isolierter GitHub-REST-API-Client mit gemockten Unit-Tests
Prozess-Logging-Konfiguration
ein harmloses health-MCP-Tool für Discovery-Checks
pytest-Abdeckung für Konfiguration und MCP-Bootstrap-Verhalten
.env.example, .gitignore, GitHub Actions CI und MIT-Lizenz
Related MCP server: MCP Server - Placeholder Implementation
Python 3.11+
uv sync --devFür die lokale Konfiguration kopieren Sie .env.example nach .env und bearbeiten Sie die Werte lokal. Committen Sie niemals .env oder echte Anmeldedaten. GITHUB_TOKEN wird vom internen GitHub-REST-API-Client verwendet und ist noch nicht über MCP-Tools verfügbar.
Tests ausführen:
uv run pytestLokale Check-Suite ausführen:
.\scripts\check.ps1MCP Inspector starten:
.\scripts\dev-inspector.ps1Server direkt über stdio ausführen:
uv run repopilot-mcpsrc/repopilot/
__init__.py
config.py
github_client.py
server.py
tests/
test_github_client.py
test_server.pyImplementiert:
health-MCP-Tool
Einstellungsmodell, das aus Umgebungsvariablen geladen wird
wiederverwendbare GitHub-REST-API-Client-Schicht
Logging-Bootstrap
Nicht implementiert:
Repository-, Datei-, Issue- oder Pull-Request-Tools
schreibfähige GitHub-Operationen
Return basic server health and safety posture.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only action ('Return') but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or what 'safety posture' concretely includes. The disclosure is minimal.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.
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?
Given the tool is a simple health check with no parameters and an output schema, the description provides adequate context. The phrase 'safety posture' could be more precise, but the overall scope is clear.
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 coverage is 100% (empty). No parameter explanation is needed; the description's simplicity is appropriate for a parameterless interface.
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 clearly identifies the action ('Return') and the resource ('basic server health and safety posture'). It is specific enough to understand the tool's purpose, though the term 'safety posture' is a bit vague. No sibling tools exist, so differentiation is not applicable.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or when to avoid it. The health-check nature implies usage for server status and safety monitoring, but no alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0healthScored across 1 tool
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools.
With a single tool named 'health', the naming is unambiguous and internally consistent.
The server provides only one trivial health-check tool, which is an extreme under-provisioning for a server presumably intended for repository management.
The sole tool only reports health status, leaving no functionality for actual repository operations, making the surface severely incomplete for the stated domain.
Create, deploy, and operate MCP servers directly from your GitHub repositories.
Guarded MCP server for agent-readable business truth, provenance, readiness, and discovery.
