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

GitHub + Linear Dev Workflows

by r28ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

github_repos_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a GitHub repository's metadata, including its default branch and topics, to identify project context and configuration for development workflows.

Instructions

Get a repository's metadata, including its default branch and topics.

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>"
    },
    "name": "github_repos_get"
  }
}

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 adds the useful detail of which metadata it surfaces (default branch, topics), but says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior, or the shape of the response.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or restated schema content.

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?

For a read-only lookup with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly and previews part of the return. Slightly more on what 'metadata' encompasses would make it fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% – both owner and repo are fully documented in the schema, including case-sensitivity and the .git note. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a repository's metadata'), and even names two concrete fields returned (default branch, topics). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from lookalike siblings such as github_repos_get_readme or github_repos_get_content, 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative named. For a simple metadata fetch the usage is strongly implied by the name, which fits the 'implied usage' tier.

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