GitHub MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| GITHUB_TOKEN | Yes | GitHub personal access token. Generate at https://github.com/settings/tokens (needs `repo` scope for private repos, no scope needed for public read-only). |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| get_repositoryC | Get information about a GitHub repository. |
| search_issuesC | List issues in a GitHub repository. |
| list_pull_requestsC | List pull requests in a GitHub repository. |
| search_repository_issuesC | Search issues in a repository. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| review_repository | Analyze the health of a GitHub repository. |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
The issue-focused tools are confusingly similar: search_issues actually lists issues, while search_repository_issues searches them, making it hard for an agent to know which to select. get_repository and list_pull_requests are distinct, but the two issue tools create real ambiguity.
All tool names use snake_case and a verb_noun pattern, but search_issues is a misleading name for a listing operation and search_repository_issues redundantly adds 'repository' while search_issues does not. This creates a somewhat consistent yet semantically muddled naming scheme.
Four tools is not excessive, but for a server called 'GitHub MCP Server' the count feels thin and narrowly scoped. It is above the 1-2 tool borderline but still underrepresents the expected breadth of a GitHub integration.
The surface only covers repository information, issue listing/searching, and pull request listing. Core GitHub operations like creating or updating issues, creating or merging pull requests, and fetching individual items are missing, which will likely cause agent failures for common workflows.