Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GitHub + Linear Dev Workflows

GitHub + Linear Dev Workflows

by r28ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

github_actions_get_run_usage

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a workflow run's total runtime and billable milliseconds per runner OS to track GitHub Actions usage; billable minutes apply only to private repos on hosted runners.

Instructions

Get a run's total run time and its billable milliseconds per runner operating system. Billable minutes apply only to private repositories on GitHub-hosted runners. GitHub has this endpoint closing down.

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_actions_get_run_usage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesThe name of the repository without the `.git` extension. The name is not case sensitive.
ownerYesThe account owner of the repository. The name is not case sensitive.
runIdYesThe ID of the workflow run.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description meaningfully adds that billable metrics are restricted to private repositories on GitHub-hosted runners, and flags the endpoint's impending shutdown, both of which an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the return payload and followed by the two constraints that matter. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly summarizes what is returned (total runtime and per-OS billable milliseconds) and adds applicability and deprecation caveats. Complete for a simple three-required-param read tool, though it never states typical use (cost analysis) or what happens once the endpoint closes.

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?

All three parameters (owner, repo, runId) are fully described in the schema at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, casing, or ID-resolution detail beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: fetching a run's total runtime plus billable milliseconds broken out per runner OS. It is far more precise than a generic 'get usage' description, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like github_actions_list_jobs_for_run that cover the same run.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description supplies a scoping condition (billable minutes apply only to private repos on GitHub-hosted runners) and a deprecation warning, both of which inform decisions about the tool's output. However, it names no alternative tool and gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance for choosing between this and the other Actions run tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools