Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@sumirati/mcp-github

@sumirati/mcp-github

by sumirati
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Get Repository

get_repository
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch repository metadata—visibility, description, default branch, stars, forks, and open issues—to verify a GitHub repo's configuration or existence by owner and repo.

Instructions

Get comprehensive repository metadata, visibility, description, default branch, HTML URL, star count, fork count, and open issues count for an owner/repo. Eager daily driver tool for verifying repository configuration and existence.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesRepository name (e.g. 'Hello-World' or 'mcp-github')
ownerYesRepository owner (user or organization, e.g. 'octocat' or 'buggycode')
formatYesOutput format: 'markdown' (default) or 'json'markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / format
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "markdown",
+  "description": "Output format: 'markdown' (default) or 'json'",
+  "enum": [
+    "json",
+    "markdown"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "owner",
-  "repo"
-]New value: +[
+  "owner",
+  "repo",
+  "format"
+]
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the concrete field list, which is helpful, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination beyond what annotations supply.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields followed by a usage hint. Every clause carries information and there is no boilerplate, though the field enumeration is slightly list-like.

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 usefully enumerates the returned metadata so an agent knows what it gets back. The safety semantics are fully covered by annotations, leaving only minor gaps around error behavior and rate limits.

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 owner, repo, and format are all documented in the schema. The description only restates the 'owner/repo' pair and adds no syntax or format guidance (e.g., the markdown vs json choice), so the baseline 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 ('repository') and enumerates the exact metadata returned (visibility, description, default branch, HTML URL, stars, forks, open issues). The sibling tools operate on clearly different resources, but the description never explicitly distinguishes itself from them, keeping it just 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?

'Eager daily driver tool for verifying repository configuration and existence' implies when to reach for it, giving useful context. However, there are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives among the siblings (get_file_contents, get_commit, etc.).

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