RepoPilot MCP 是一个小型的 Python Model Context Protocol 服务器引导程序。它被设置为未来 GitHub 仓库工具的生产级起点，但目前尚未实现 GitHub API 功能。
src/ 包布局
带有 uv 兼容依赖的 pyproject.toml
类型化环境配置
带有模拟单元测试的独立 GitHub REST API 客户端
进程日志配置
一个用于发现检查的无害 health MCP 工具
针对配置和 MCP 引导行为的 pytest 覆盖率
.env.example、.gitignore、GitHub Actions CI 和 MIT 许可证
Related MCP server: MCP Server - Placeholder Implementation
Python 3.11+
uv sync --dev对于本地配置，将 .env.example 复制为 .env 并在本地编辑其中的值。切勿提交 .env 或真实凭据。GITHUB_TOKEN 由内部 GitHub REST API 客户端使用，目前尚未通过 MCP 工具暴露。
运行测试：
uv run pytest运行本地检查套件：
.\scripts\check.ps1启动 MCP Inspector：
.\scripts\dev-inspector.ps1通过 stdio 直接运行服务器：
uv run repopilot-mcpsrc/repopilot/
__init__.py
config.py
github_client.py
server.py
tests/
test_github_client.py
test_server.py已实现：
health MCP 工具
从环境变量加载的设置模型
可复用的 GitHub REST API 客户端层
日志引导
未实现：
仓库、文件、问题或拉取请求工具
支持写入的 GitHub 操作
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.
