GitHub MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| search-reposC | Search for GitHub repositories |
| get-repo-infoC | Get information about a specific GitHub repository |
| list-issuesC | List issues in a GitHub repository |
| create-issueC | Create a new issue in a GitHub repository |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| create-issue-description | Generate a description for a GitHub issue |
| create-pull-request-description | Generate a description for a GitHub pull request |
| search-repos-prompt | Generate a query for searching GitHub repositories |
| create-issue-prompt | Generate parameters for creating a GitHub issue |
| enhance-github-response | Format and enhance raw GitHub API response data |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: create-issue handles issue creation, get-repo-info retrieves repository details, list-issues lists existing issues, and search-repos searches for repositories. There is no overlap or ambiguity in functionality.
The naming follows a consistent verb-noun pattern (create-issue, get-repo-info, list-issues, search-repos), with all tools using hyphen-separated lowercase. The minor deviation is that 'get-repo-info' includes an extra 'info' suffix, but overall the pattern is predictable and readable.
With only 4 tools, the set feels thin for a GitHub server, lacking common operations like updating/deleting issues, managing pull requests, or accessing repository contents. While the tools are well-scoped, the count is borderline low for the domain's typical scope.
The tool surface has significant gaps for a GitHub server. It covers basic issue and repository operations but misses critical CRUD/lifecycle coverage (e.g., no update/delete for issues, no pull request tools, no repository modification). This will likely cause agent failures in common workflows.