Skip to main content
Glama

create_repository

Create a new GitHub repository with specified name, description, visibility, and README initialization directly through the GitHub MCP Server interface.

Instructions

Create a new GitHub repository in your account

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
autoInitNoInitialize with README.md
descriptionNoRepository description
nameYesRepository name
privateNoWhether the repository should be private

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function that executes the tool logic by making a POST request to GitHub's /user/repos endpoint with the provided options and parsing the response.
    export async function createRepository(options: CreateRepositoryOptions) {
      const response = await githubRequest("https://api.github.com/user/repos", {
        method: "POST",
        body: options,
      });
      return GitHubRepositorySchema.parse(response);
    }
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the create_repository tool.
    export const CreateRepositoryOptionsSchema = z.object({
      name: z.string().describe("Repository name"),
      description: z.string().optional().describe("Repository description"),
      private: z.boolean().optional().describe("Whether the repository should be private"),
      autoInit: z.boolean().optional().describe("Initialize with README.md"),
    });
  • index.ts:80-84 (registration)
    Registration of the tool in the MCP server's listTools handler, including name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: "create_repository",
      description: "Create a new GitHub repository in your account",
      inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(repository.CreateRepositoryOptionsSchema),
    },
  • Dispatch handler in the CallToolRequestSchema that validates arguments and calls the createRepository function.
    case "create_repository": {
      const args = repository.CreateRepositoryOptionsSchema.parse(request.params.arguments);
      const result = await repository.createRepository(args);
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
      };
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 mutation tool that creates resources with 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, error conditions, authentication needs, or how it differs from similar tools. The context demands more completeness than provided.

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 documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but it correctly implies the 'name' parameter is central. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('new GitHub repository in your account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'fork_repository' or specify what type of account (user vs. organization), which prevents a perfect score.

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 'fork_repository' or 'create_project'. The description only states what it does without context about prerequisites, when it's appropriate, or what happens after creation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/tuanle96/mcp-github'

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