Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-techTrend

mcp-techTrend

by salwks
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

github_trending

Read-only

Browse the public 'what's hot now' feed on GitHub to find trending repositories without a specific topic.

Instructions

Browse github.com/trending — the public 'what's hot now' feed. USE THIS WHEN: user wants to browse trending repos with no specific topic in mind ('파이썬 트렌딩 보여줘', 'GitHub 핫한 거'). USE github_search INSTEAD WHEN: user has a specific topic/keyword. Note: this is HTML scraping (no official API), so layout changes can break it.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "github_trending"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
languageNo
sinceNodaily
max_resultsNo
response_formatNomarkdown

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral context: the tool uses HTML scraping (no official API) and layout changes can break it. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place: what, when, and a behavioral caveat.

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 simplicity (read-only, optional parameters, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, and a warning. It could mention parameter defaults or output format, but overall is fairly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (language, since, max_results, response_format) and adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is low due to high coverage gap.

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 browses github.com/trending, the public 'what's hot now' feed, and gives a specific use case (user wants to browse trending repos with no specific topic). It also distinguishes from the sibling github_search tool.

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 explicitly provides 'USE THIS WHEN' and 'USE github_search INSTEAD WHEN' conditions, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative.

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