GitHub MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes focused on different aspects of GitHub activity (PRs authored, reviews, comments, stats), but there is some overlap between getCommentImpact and getReviewComments/getUserComments in analyzing comments. The descriptions help clarify differences, but an agent might occasionally confuse which tool to use for comment-related analysis.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get' as the verb (e.g., getAuthoredPRs, getCommentImpact, getPRReviews). The naming is uniform and predictable, using camelCase throughout without any deviations or mixed conventions.
Tool Count4/5
With 6 tools, the count is reasonable for a GitHub analytics server, but it feels slightly thin for comprehensive coverage. The tools focus on user activity metrics, missing broader operations like repository management or issue handling, which might limit scope. However, each tool serves a clear purpose within this niche.
Completeness3/5
The toolset covers user-centric analytics well (e.g., PRs, reviews, comments, stats), but there are notable gaps for a GitHub server, such as no create, update, or delete operations, and missing tools for repositories, issues, or code search. This limits agents to read-only analysis without full lifecycle coverage.
Average 4.2/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under ISC License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well at disclosing key behaviors: it explains what the tool examines (PR timeline data), what it returns (impact assessment with confidence scores and evidence), filtering behavior ('Only includes comments with actual impact'), and statistical outputs. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential data limitations, but provides substantial behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The use cases and return format sections are helpful additions, though the 'Returns:' section could be more integrated. Some redundancy exists between the description text and the explicit 'Returns:' statement, but overall it's well-structured with minimal waste.
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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the tool's purpose, usage context, behavioral characteristics, and return format in detail. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates by explicitly describing the return structure. Some edge cases (like what happens with no matching data) aren't addressed.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter documentation. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it mentions 'Filters by repository' which is already covered in the repo parameter description. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Analyze whether review comments resulted in subsequent code changes' with specific verbs (analyze, examine, determine) and resources (review comments, PR timeline data, code changes). It distinguishes from siblings like 'github.getReviewComments' (which just retrieves comments) by focusing on impact analysis rather than data retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Use this tool to measure the effectiveness of code reviews' with specific use cases listed (measure review impact, assess review quality, track metrics, identify high-impact reviewers). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools for different needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it describes the return format (array of review objects with specific fields), filtering behavior (auto-filters out reviews on auto-generated PRs), and time range defaults (last 3 months if omitted). It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers most essential aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality, followed by use cases and return details. The example use cases section is helpful but slightly lengthens the text, though each sentence earns its place by clarifying application scenarios.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining behavior, filtering, defaults, and return format. It could be more complete by mentioning potential limitations like pagination or error cases, but it covers the essentials for effective use.
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%, so the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('fetch all PR reviews submitted by a user') and resources ('filtered by repository'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on reviews rather than authored PRs, comments, or stats. It explicitly mentions what it returns and what it filters out.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to assess code review participation and review quality') and includes example use cases, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools like github.getReviewComments or github.getUserComments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does this well. It describes important behavioral traits beyond basic functionality: automatic filtering of auto-generated comments and comments on auto-created PRs, JSON-escaping of comment bodies, and the structured grouping of results. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior, preventing a perfect score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality in the first sentence. The example use cases and return format details are useful additions, though the return format section could be slightly more concise. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: clear purpose, usage guidance, behavioral details, and a detailed explanation of the return structure. It covers the complexity of filtering, processing, and formatting results well. The main gap is the lack of explicit mention of authentication or rate limiting considerations.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but it does reinforce the repository filtering requirement in the purpose statement. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('fetch', 'filtered by', 'returns') and resources ('inline and general review comments', 'user', 'time range', 'repository'). It distinguishes from siblings like github.getUserComments by specifying it's for review comments only, not all comments, and from github.getPRReviews by focusing on comments rather than review statuses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to analyze review comment quality and quantity') and includes example use cases that illustrate appropriate scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it normalizes comments into a unified format, deduplicates by comment ID, filters by createdAt and author, and automatically filters out auto-generated comments and comments on auto-created PRs. It also specifies the return format in detail. This covers most critical aspects, though it lacks explicit mention of potential rate limits or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by behavioral details and use cases. Every sentence adds value, such as explaining the combination of comment types and filtering logic. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the return format into the main flow, but overall it is efficient and front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (fetching and processing multiple comment types) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description does a good job of providing necessary context. It explains the tool's behavior, filtering logic, and return format in detail. However, it could improve by addressing potential limitations like pagination or large result sets, which would enhance completeness for an agent.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, as it only mentions filtering by 'comment.createdAt and author' without elaborating on parameter usage or interactions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Fetch all comments'), resource ('added by a user for a given repository'), and scope ('within a time duration'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it combines PR review comments and PR issue comments into a unified format with deduplication, unlike tools like github.getReviewComments or github.getPRReviews which likely focus on specific comment types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to get a complete view of all user comments in a repository') and includes example use cases that illustrate appropriate scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, such as github.getReviewComments for only review comments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by specifying the return format ('Array of PR objects with id, repo, title...'), mentioning automatic filtering of auto-generated PRs, and indicating time range defaults ('If omitted, uses last 3 months'). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, behavioral details, usage guidance, and output specification. While somewhat lengthy, every section adds value. The example use cases could potentially be more concise, but they provide helpful context for tool selection.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering behavior, use cases, and return format. It specifies what data is returned and includes important behavioral details like auto-filtering and time defaults. The main gap is lack of information about authentication, rate limits, or error conditions.
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%, so the schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it mentions 'Optionally filter by specific repositories' which is already clear in the schema. The description focuses more on use cases and outputs rather than parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('fetch all pull requests authored by a given user within a time range') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying it's for analyzing user code contribution activity rather than reviews, comments, or repo stats. It explicitly mentions filtering out auto-generated PRs, which further differentiates its scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance with 'Use this tool to analyze a user's code contribution activity' and lists four concrete example use cases (assess productivity, analyze trends, performance reviews, track metrics). This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives like review or comment analysis tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior by detailing what metrics are aggregated (e.g., PRs with state breakdown, comments with review/issue breakdown, reviews with state breakdown, code changes) and mentions it 'combines data from multiple sources internally,' adding useful context. However, it lacks information on potential limitations like rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs, which slightly reduces transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose statement followed by detailed metrics and use cases. It efficiently conveys comprehensive information without unnecessary fluff. However, the inclusion of example use cases and a detailed returns section, while helpful, adds some length that could be slightly trimmed for optimal conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (aggregating multiple metrics) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description does a good job of providing context. It details the returned stats comprehensively, covering all key metrics. However, it could be more complete by addressing potential behavioral aspects like performance implications or data freshness, which would enhance usability for an AI agent.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all four parameters (username, repo, from, to). The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already specifies, such as format nuances or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get comprehensive repository statistics for a user within a time frame') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by emphasizing it's 'the most efficient tool for getting a complete overview' and 'combines data from multiple sources internally.' It explicitly mentions metrics like PRs, comments, reviews, and code changes, making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives by stating 'This is the most efficient tool for getting a complete overview of user activity in a repository' and listing example use cases like performance reviews and developer metrics reports. It implies alternatives (sibling tools like github.getAuthoredPRs) are for more specific, granular queries, making the context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![github-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/radireddy/github-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/radireddy/github-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![github-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/radireddy/github-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/radireddy/github-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/radireddy/github-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server