GitHub Flow MCP

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.2.0
Disambiguation2/5
There is heavy overlap among the many 'preview_' tools: preview_branch_name, preview_local_commit, preview_remote_branch, preview_pull_request, and preview_pull_request_comment all follow a 'preview' pattern but differ in what they preview. More seriously, inspect_local_repository and preview_local_commit both involve inspecting local state, and several tools have empty descriptions (healthcheck, get_authenticated_user, get_repository, list_branches) that provide no cues for disambiguation, making misselection likely.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_pull_requests, get_pull_request, list_branches, list_workflows). However, there is a notable deviation with build_basecamp_pr_update and healthcheck, and the 'preview_' family uses a verb style distinct from the rest of the set, creating a mixed but still readable convention.
Tool Count4/5
At 18 tools, the count is on the heavier side but reasonable for a GitHub workflow orchestration server that spans local inspection, PR operations, Basecamp integration, and CI workflows. Several tools feel edge-case specific (healthcheck, get_authenticated_user, list_collaborator_permission), but each has a defensible purpose.
Completeness3/5
The server covers core GitHub operations like listing/getting PRs, branches, workflows, and repository information. However, there are notable gaps: no create/update/merge pull request tools, no create/delete branch tools, and no workflow dispatch or run detail tools. The surface is read-inspection heavy but lacks the mutation actions expected of a 'workflow' server.
Average 2.5/5 across 18 of 18 tools scored. Lowest: 1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT 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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 disclose that this tool does NOT write to Basecamp (a key non-destructive behavior), which is valuable. However, it doesn't explain what it actually produces beyond 'Markdown,' whether it fetches the PR data from GitHub, what happens with the repo/pull_number, or whether auth/permissions are needed. The behavioral profile is only partially disclosed.
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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key verb and resource effectively. It's appropriately short, though it errs on the side of being too terse given the lack of supporting detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 parameters (2 required), no annotation coverage at 0% schema description, and no description of output format despite having an output schema. The description does not explain what input data drives the Markdown generation, prerequisites, or how this relates to the sibling Basecamp-related workflow. For a tool that builds a document from PR data, this is under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate — but it adds no parameter information whatsoever. The schema shows repo, owner, summary, and pull_number, but the description gives no hint of which are required, what summary is used for, how owner relates to repo, or what data pull_number selects. For a tool with zero schema coverage, this is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Build' and the resource 'Basecamp PR update,' and indicates it outputs Markdown without writing to Basecamp. However, it doesn't explicitly say it uses pull request data as the input source, and the phrase 'separate Basecamp MCP' is cryptic — it doesn't clarify what makes this distinct from other MCPs. It's clear enough about the general action but lacks specificity about what content the Markdown contains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance is provided. While the description implies it's a preview/dry-run variant (since it doesn't write to Basecamp), it doesn't name an alternative for the actual write operation, nor does it specify when to choose this over the many sibling tools. The 'without writing to Basecamp' clause hints at a dry-run use case but no explicit context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses no behavioral traits — no mention of pagination behavior, whether it lists local or remote branches, sorting, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a read tool with zero annotations, this is a gap.
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-word description is extremely concise with zero waste. However, this borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness — it's short because it says almost nothing, not because it efficiently conveys a full picture.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is an output schema and 3 parameters, but the description explains none of the parameter semantics and only vaguely the purpose. For a tool with zero schema description coverage and no annotations, it should carry far more explanatory weight than it does. The agent can only guess at branching behavior and parameter format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning to the 3 parameters. It does not explain 'repo', 'owner', or 'max_items' at all. An agent would not know how owner/repo combine, what max_items controls, or the required format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description says 'Lists repository branches' — clear verb+resource, but terse. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like list_pull_requests or the preview functions, though the resource (branches) is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No mention of the owner param (which appears optional with a default), or how it relates to inspecting remote branches. No exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('list reviews') with no mention of pagination, ordering, return shape details, or what a review record contains (comments, states, etc.). For a list operation, the agent gets no expectation of what the result set looks like.
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?
A single concise sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately short for a simple list operation, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing useful guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema existing, the description is thin for a tool in a large GitHub PR toolset (17 siblings). With zero annotations and zero parameter descriptions, the description should provide more context about review types, pagination, or the distinguishing purpose. The complejsoness is minimal for the given context complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema has no descriptions. The description doesn't clarify the parameters either — it never mentions that repo/owner/pull_number identify which pull request's reviews to fetch. The 'owner' parameter has a default of empty string, and no clarification of whether it's required alongside repo. The description adds no meaning beyond names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb and resource ('List reviews for a pull request'), which is clear. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from closely related siblings like get_pull_request, list_pull_request_files, and preview_pull_request, so differentiation among the GitHub PR toolset is missing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pull_request or preview_pull_request. The description gives no context about when listing reviews is appropriate or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions ordering (most recently updated) but doesn't disclose pagination limits, rate limit behavior, authentication requirements, or what the output format is. The max_items default of 100 is in the schema but not surfaced in the description.
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 a single, short sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, given the sparse content, it's bordering on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and 8+ PR-related sibling tools to differentiate from. The description provides only the ordering detail. For a list tool with default state='open' and multiple related siblings, this is significantly under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter guidance beyond what the schema titles provide. The description doesn't explain how state, max_items, or owner interact with listing behavior. With 4 params and 0% coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List pull requests ordered by most recently updated' which provides a clear verb+resource, but it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like list_pull_request_files, list_pull_request_reviews, get_pull_request, or preview_pull_request. The ordering detail is useful but the scope (which repo's PRs, filters) is underspecified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pull_request, preview_pull_request, or list_pull_request_files. It says nothing about what state filter is defaulting to or when one would pick this over a single-PR lookup. Sibling tools cover many PR-related operations but no differentiation is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it's quite thin. 'Issue a token' is a vague side effect—what token, what is it used for, is it destructive or reversible, does it require special permissions such as write access to comments? None of these are disclosed. The term 'token' may signal some read operation, but the ambiguity about what 'issue a token' does behaviorally is a significant gap.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It's appropriately brief, though slightly under-specified. Efficiency is good, but brevity borders on under-informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the token mechanism, return values, prerequisites, or how the preview relates to an actual action. Even with an output schema present, the lack of guidance about token semantics and usage context makes this inadequate for a non-trivial 4-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds essentially no parameter meaning. It doesn't explain what 'body' should contain, what 'owner' default means, or what 'pull_number' refers to. The description mentions 'the exact body' which loosely maps to the body parameter, but there's no format or semantic guidance beyond schema titles (Repo, Body, Owner, Pull Number).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Preview' and resource 'PR timeline comment', but the phrase 'and issue a token for the exact body' is somewhat ambiguous—it doesn't clearly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'preview_pull_request'. While it's clear it previews a comment, the distinction from 'preview_pull_request' (which presumably previews the PR itself) is only implicit, not explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings. Among the many preview_* tools (preview_branch_name, preview_local_commit, preview_remote_branch, preview_pull_request), there's no differentiation or exclusion note. The description implies usage ('preview a comment') but provides no when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It mentions issuing a 'token bound to the exact source commit,' which is a meaningful side effect, but it doesn't explain what the token is for, whether this is destructive/mutating, whether it requires permissions, or what impact this token issuance has. The output schema exists, mitigating some ambiguity, but the behavioral profile is largely opaque.
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 one short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. It is appropriately brief for what it conveys, though the brevity trades off against the completeness gaps noted in other dimensions. Minimal waste, but under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This tool has 6 parameters (2 required), an output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage. Despite having an output schema, the description fails to address the token's purpose, the meaning of required and optional parameters, or how this differs from several sibling preview tools. For a tool with this much surface area and ambiguity relative to siblings, the description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must clarify the 6 parameters. It defines none of them. 'description' is required but its purpose (likely the PR/preview description) is not explained; 'basecamp_url', 'environment', and 'source_branch' are entirely undefined. The description only hints at 'branch' and 'source commit' but does not map them to specific parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Preview a branch and issue a token bound to the exact source commit.' It identifies the primary action (preview a branch) and secondary effect (issuing a token). However, it doesn't clearly distinguish how this differs from siblings like preview_local_commit or preview_pull_request, which likely also produce previews. The verb is reasonably specific but the resource/scope differentiator is weak.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many preview-related siblings (preview_branch_name, preview_local_commit, preview_pull_request, preview_pull_request_comment). It does not mention prerequisites such as needing an existing remote branch, or when owner/environment/basecamp_url would be needed. 'Remote' in the name hints at remote branches, but this is not stated as a usage condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. The description states this is a read/check operation ('Checks whether') which implies non-destructive behavior, but does not disclose what happens for missing users, whether both owner and non-owner paths work, authentication prerequisites, or how permission values are returned. The output schema exists and may cover return format, but edge-case behavior is undisclosed.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no wasted text. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful behavioral detail; the conciseness is appropriate but slightly under-elaborated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has 3 parameters with a default-bearing optional parameter (owner), zero annotation coverage, and sits among 16 sibling tools where disambiguation is important, the description is under-specified. It does not explain the owner/repo distinction, how the caller should construct the repository reference, or what permission values are possible. The output schema may cover return structure, but invocation prerequisites are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description names one parameter semantically ('user/bot') but does not clarify the distinction between 'owner' (which has a default of empty string) and 'repo', nor how 'username' differs from 'owner'. The description does not compensate for the schema's bare parameter names. For a 3-parameter tool with zero description coverage, this is a notable gap.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Checks whether'), the resource ('user/bot is a collaborator'), and the outcome ('returns repository permission'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that inspect repositories or lists, as none of the siblings seem to check collaborator permissions. Clear enough for an agent to identify when this tool is relevant.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states what it does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. Among 16 sibling tools focused on repositories, PRs, and workflows, there is no explicit context about when collaborator permission checking is preferred over get_repository or healthcheck for precondition checks. No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the basic action and gives no context about the response format, what the 'repo' identifier means (owner/repo format?), whether owner is optional, or any side effects. With an output schema present and read-only semantics implied by 'get', some of this is mitigated, but the description adds no behavioral color beyond the one-line statement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately short and front-loaded with the purpose in the first clause. However, it's borderline under-specified rather than concise—one sentence that says essentially what the tool name already conveys, adding no supplementary value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an output schema exists and the tool is a simple read operation, moderate completeness might suffice. However, with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the absence of parameter clarifications (especially the owner/repo relationship) leaves gaps. The task is simple enough that a 3 is fair, but it could easily be more helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not. There's no clarification of what 'repo' should contain (e.g., 'owner/repo' format), what 'owner' default '' means or when it's needed, or how pull_number should be obtained. The params are minimally self-describing by name but ambiguous in usage semantics.
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?
The description clearly states the verb+resource: 'Get' a 'pull request by number'. It's unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings like preview_pull_request or list_pull_requests, though the name itself implies fetching a single PR by number versus listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, there's no distinction between get_pull_request and preview_pull_request, or how this differs from list_pull_requests. An agent has no context on which scenarios warrant each sibling tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not state whether this is a read-only operation (it presumably is, given the name), whether authentication is required, any pagination behavior, rate-limit implications, what the max_items parameter does in practice, or the return format. It's a read operation with zero annotation coverage and no behavioral context added.
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 a single, complete sentence with zero fluff: 'List changed files in a pull request.' It's appropriately sized relative to its simplicity. However, it may be slightly under-specified given there are 4 parameters including a default owner field and a max_items limit that aren't explained. Still, for its length, it's efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is an output schema present, which shifts some burden away from the description. But the tool has 4 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no behavioral context. For a GitHub pull request file-listing tool, the description could reasonably mention pagination/limiting behavior (max_items default of 300) or the owner/repo relationship default. As-is, it's a minimal but not entirely inadequate description for a simple listing tool.
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 0%, meaning the description adds nothing about any of the 4 parameters. The baseline for compensating for low coverage would be to explain parameters, but none are described. However, the parameter names (repo, owner, pull_number, max_items) are fairly self-descriptive for a GitHub API context, which slightly mitigates the gap. The description adds essentially no semantic value beyond what the schema already presents, so the score reflects the low coverage without the compensation the guidance advises.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List changed files in a pull request' has a specific verb (list) and resource (changed files in a pull request), which is clear enough. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like list_pull_requests, get_pull_request, or list_pull_request_reviews, all of which also relate to pull requests. The purpose is clear but not uniquely differentiated among closely related siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when listing changed files is the appropriate operation, what scenarios call for it, or how it differs from other list_* siblings in the same GitHub context. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone. Some implied context exists (it's for changed files in a PR), but no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description is a simple read operation ('lists'), which is low-risk, but it doesn't mention pagination behavior, how 'recent' is determined, whether runs are returned in any particular order, or what max_items does if exceeded. For a read-only listing tool this is marginal, but with zero annotation support the description should do more.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose well. However, with 6 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is arguably under-specified rather than concise; a bit more detail would be worth the added length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, but the tool has 6 parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and sits among closely related siblings (list_workflows, list_pull_requests). The description provides only the minimum purpose statement and fails to clarify parameter semantics, ordering, or filtering behavior, leaving the agent to guess at acceptable values for event/status/branch filters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 6 parameters, but it only mentions 'optional filters' generically. It doesn't explain that 'event' refers to trigger events, that 'status' maps to specific GitHub run statuses (queued, in_progress, completed, etc.), or the relationship between owner/repo requirements. Only the 'repo' required parameter is self-explanatory from the schema.
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?
The description states a specific verb+resource: 'Lists recent GitHub Actions workflow runs with optional filters.' This is clear about the resource (workflow runs) and the scope (recent). However, it doesn't distinguish from the sibling tool 'list_workflows', which is closely related (listing workflows vs. listing workflow runs). Both descriptions would benefit from differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says 'recent' and 'with optional filters' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'list_workflows' or other siblings. There's no mention of the GitHub API limits on run history, pagination behavior, or what 'recent' means concretely. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the read operation without mentioning return format, pagination, filtering capabilities, or what a typical response looks like. There's no note about what information is returned (e.g., names, paths, states), leaving the agent uncertain about output.
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 a single clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately minimal for a straightforward listing tool. However, given the sibling confusion risk, a second sentence distinguishing from list_workflow_runs would have been worthwhile without adding bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Has an output schema, so return format is partially covered. But with no annotations, no usage guidance, and a confusing sibling tool, the description is too thin. For a tool with a closely related sibling (list_workflow_runs) and zero annotation coverage, it should provide more context about what 'workflows' means here versus runs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description names the repo context implicitly but doesn't detail the 'owner' parameter or its default ('') behavior. However, the parameter names themselves ('repo', 'owner') are fairly self-explanatory given the tool's GitHub context, which reduces the need for elaboration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool lists GitHub Actions workflows in a repository, which is a clear verb+resource. However, it doesn't distinguish from the sibling 'list_workflow_runs' tool, which could easily be confused with listing workflows themselves. The distinction between workflows (definitions) and workflow runs (executions) is not clarified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Most notably, there's no clarification of how this differs from 'list_workflow_runs', which is a closely related sibling. The agent must guess whether they want workflow definitions or workflow executions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the branch is not created, which is the key safety trait, but does not explain what 'validates' means: does it check naming conventions, existing branches, or character limits? It also doesn't disclose whether this makes any network calls, requires auth, or what side effects (if any) occur. The return/output behavior is not described.
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, tightly-written sentence that conveys the core action and the key non-effect ('without creating the branch'). Zero wasted words. Appropriate for its scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does not document parameter semantics, validation rules, return format (though an output schema exists which partially helps), or when to prefer this over sibling branch-related tools. The output schema partially covers return-value expectations, which raises the score slightly, but the input semantics and usage context are significantly under-specified for an agent to invoke this correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters (description, environment, basecamp_url, source_branch) are documented. With 0% coverage, the description must compensate, but it gives no hint about what parameters feed into the branch name construction — no format, no which are optional vs required beyond the schema's requirement on 'description', and no examples of expected values like how environment or basecamp_url influence the generated name.
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?
The description clearly states it 'Builds and validates the branch name without creating the branch', which specifies the verb (builds, validates), the resource (branch name), and a key negative criterion (not creating). This distinguishes its non-destructive preview nature from actual branch-creation tools like preview_remote_branch, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative.
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?
The description implies this is a preview/non-committing operation, which distinguishes it from tools like preview_remote_branch (which previews remote state) and preview_local_commit. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions, and doesn't clarify when one would choose this vs. the branch-creating counterparts among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: 'This tool never creates commits' — a safety guarantee for agents. However, it doesn't explain what 'preview' produces (does it return the plan structure? a dry-run diff?), whether it reads the working tree or staged changes, or what the output looks like. The one disclosed behavior is valuable but incomplete.
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?
The description is two short sentences with zero waste. The key safety disclaimer is front-loaded and prominent. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a three-parameter read-only-ish tool with an output schema, but 0% schema description coverage and no behavioral detail. The description only establishes that it previews and doesn't create commits. It doesn't clarify what the preview contains, how the basecamp_url factors in, whether it inspects local working changes, or what kind of commit plan it previews. For a tool with no annotations and no parameter documentation, this is under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. The description provides zero information about what repo_path, commit_message, or basecamp_url mean or how they should be formatted. Three required parameters exist with no explanatory added value for any of them.
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?
The description clearly states the purpose: 'Previews a local commit plan' with the verb 'previews' and resource 'local commit plan.' It's distinguished from siblings like preview_pull_request, preview_remote_branch, and preview_branch_name, though among several preview_* siblings, the distinction relies on 'local commit' specificity which is reasonably clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states 'This tool never creates commits' which is a negative/exclusion statement, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs preview_pull_request or preview_remote_branch. There's no explicit when-to-use context, no alternative tool naming, and no scenario description for when previewing a local commit would be appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions 'issue a token bound to the exact final payload' which hints at side effects (token creation/consumption), but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only preview operation or one with state-changing side effects, what the token is used for, or whether it expires.
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?
One concise sentence, zero filler. Every word adds meaning. This is appropriately minimal given the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 10 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but an output schema present. The description does not explain the return value, what 'token' means, how it's consumed, or the relationship between preview and actual PR creation. The output schema may help, but the description alone leaves the tool's contract underspecified for the parameter count.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for ten undocumented parameters. While it doesn't document individual parameters, it clarifies the overall intent ('preview' + 'token bound to exact final payload') which explains what parameters collectively produce. With 0% coverage, any added meaning is valuable, though per-parameter detail is absent.
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?
The verb 'Preview' plus resource 'a pull request' is specific, and the description adds unique context about issuing a token bound to the final payload, distinguishing it conceptually from sibling tools like get_pull_request and list_pull_requests. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from preview_pull_request_comment or build_basecamp_pr_update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives is provided. There's no mention of when previewing is appropriate, whether this should be used before creating a PR, or how it differs from other preview_* sibling tools. The token-binding mention hints at a specific use case but doesn't articulate it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does declare the non-mutating nature ('without changing...'), which is valuable. However, it doesn't disclose what output it produces, whether it has any side effects like network access, or how it handles invalid paths. The safety profile is stated, but return behavior is unspecified.
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?
Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the purpose verb and resource. Concise but effective for such a simple tool with one parameter. Nothing extraneous.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool appears simple (1 parameter) though has an output schema which could carry return-value details. With no annotations and 0% schema parameter coverage, the description should explain more about what inspection outputs are available and what input validation applies. Adequate for a simple read tool but leaves the agent guessing about results and edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate, but it adds no information about the repo_path parameter beyond what the schema provides. The name implies it expects a filesystem path, but the description doesn't clarify format, whether relative/absolute paths are accepted, or what constitutes a valid reposity. With a single param, this is a meaningful gap.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('inspects') and resource ('local Git repository'), and explicitly declares non-mutating scope. It distinguishes from the sibling preview_* tools by focusing on the local repository rather than branch/commit names, but doesn't articulate what exactly is inspected (status? history? config?).
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?
The description establishes the read-only context ('without changing files, branches, commits, or remotes') which signals safe usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like preview_branch_name or healthcheck, nor what conditions should trigger its use. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'metadata and permissions' which indicates read-only access, but doesn't disclose return format details, pagination, or whether permissions info requires authenticated context. The phrase 'metadata and permissions' hints at read-only behavior but is not explicit about safety profile compared to siblings.
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, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, and the token count is minimal while still conveying the tool's primary function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema (which provides return value details) and only 1 required parameter, so the complexity is moderate. The description adequately names what is retrieved (metadata and permissions) but is thin on usage context and parameter guidance. For a relatively simple metadata-fetching tool, this is borderline adequate but could benefit from clarifying when to use vs inspect_local_repository.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it doesn't explain either parameter. 'repo' is a string (likely repository identifier) and 'owner' defaults to empty (suggesting optional override), but neither purpose is clarified in the description. The description makes no reference to what repo/owner mean or how they relate, though the 'repository metadata' wording implies repo identifies the target.
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?
The description states a clear verb ('Gets') and resource ('repository'), indicating this fetches repository metadata and permissions. It distinguishes from siblings like inspect_local_repository (local) and list branches/list_pull_requests (different resources), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_collaborator_permission which is more narrowly permission-specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 is provided. The description doesn't mention that this is a read-only lookup appropriate for fetching repo metadata, nor does it contrast with alternatives like inspect_local_repository for local checking or get_collaborator_permission for targeted permission queries. Usage context is entirely implied.
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-flow-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/thiagorchaves/github-flow-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/thiagorchaves/github-flow-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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