trendingFind new MCP servers, skills, and plugins on GitHub ranked by stars gained per day for a chosen period. Discover emerging tools by their daily star growth.
New MCP servers, skills and plugins created on GitHub in the period, ranked by stars gained per day since creation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| period | Yes | Time window |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral content: results come from GitHub, are restricted to items created in the period, and are ordered by stars-per-day since creation. It omits pagination/limit behavior and the shape of the result, but the ranking disclosure is genuinely useful.
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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the resource and scope before the ranking rule. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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?
For a three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate about what is returned conceptually but leaves the limit parameter entirely unexplained (defaults, cap of 50) and gives no hint about result shape or count. It is minimally sufficient rather than complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'period' carries a schema description), so the description must compensate. It conceptually explains the period window and the item kinds (mcp/skill/plugin) that map to the type enum, but says nothing about the limit parameter, its bounds, or default behavior.
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?
States a specific resource (new MCP servers, skills, plugins on GitHub) plus the exact ranking metric (stars gained per day since creation) and the scoping period, which is far more than a tautology. It does not explicitly contrast itself with list_best, the sibling most likely to be confused with it, so it falls short of a 5.
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 never says when to pick this over list_best or search_tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The 'new ... created in the period' phrasing only weakly implies 'use this for recent trending items' and leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.