whichlib
Uses the GitHub Search and repository APIs as the core data source: it retrieves candidate repositories for a plain-word need (by relevance order, stars order and topic queries), reads signals such as stars, forks, open issues, license, topics, last push date and archive status, and produces scored, tiered recommendations, side-by-side comparisons and lists of the most-starred repositories created in the last day, week or month.
Resolves JavaScript/TypeScript repositories to their published npm packages (trying <repo> and @<owner>/<repo>) and fetches last week's download counts from npm, which feed the adoption part of each repository's score and appear in verdicts and results.
Resolves Python repositories to their published PyPI packages and fetches last week's download counts, which feed the adoption part of each repository's score and appear in verdicts and results.
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@whichlibwhich library should I use for date parsing in TypeScript?"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
whichlib
The dependency picker for coding agents. Ask which library to use and get a scored, verified answer instead of a guess.
whichlib is an MCP server with three tools (recommend_repos,
compare_repos, trending_repos) and a free dashboard, Fresh Repos, that
shows the most-starred GitHub repositories created in the last day, week and
month. Every repository gets a transparent 0–100 score from momentum,
maintenance, adoption (stars, forks, npm and PyPI downloads) and license,
plus a one-line verdict.
Quick start
Agents: see MCP server below for the one-line install.
Dashboard:
Clone or download this repository.
Double-click
whichlib/dashboard/index.html.
That is all. The page is a single HTML file that calls the GitHub Search API straight from your browser. No build step, no server, no account.
Optional: paste a GitHub token under Settings on the page to raise the API limit from 10 to 30 requests per minute. A fine-grained token with no permissions is enough. It stays in your browser's local storage.
Related MCP server: mcp-github-tools
What you get
Three tabs: Today, This week, This month. Each lists the 100 most-starred repos created in that window.
Sort by any column: stars, stars per day, forks, open issues, created date, last push, language, license or name. Click again to reverse.
Filter by language (17 languages) or by free text over name, description and topics.
The rank column always shows the stars rank, so after sorting by forks you still see where a repo stands.
Results are cached in the browser for 60 minutes per tab and language.
Light and dark themes follow your system setting.
How the numbers are defined
Trending here means "created in the period, ranked by stars". That is what the GitHub Search API supports. GitHub's own trending page ranks by stars gained in the period, which has no public API. The nightly snapshots in this repo will make that possible later.
Downloads do not exist for repositories on GitHub, only for release files. Forks are shown as the nearest public signal.
Stars/day is stars divided by the repo's age, floored at one hour.
Score
Every repo gets a score from 0 to 100, a tier and a one-line verdict. The
breakdown is always returned so a person or an agent can see why. The same
file, whichlib/lib/score.js, runs in the dashboard and in Node, so
the two can never disagree.
Part | Weight | Signal |
Momentum | 40% | Stars gained over the last 7 days from our snapshots. Without history, stars per day since creation times 7, with age floored at one day. Log scale: 50 a week is already good, 5,000 is the max. |
Maintenance | 25% | Days since last push: full marks up to 30 days, zero at 365, linear between. Minus 0.2 when open issues exceed a tenth of the stars. Stability guard: a repo with 10k+ stars or 100k+ weekly downloads, pushed within the last year and not archived, never drops below 0.5 here. Heavy use plus silence is stability, not decay. |
Adoption | 25% | With weekly downloads known: 50% stars (max 100k), 20% forks (max 20k), 30% downloads (max 1M). Otherwise 70% stars, 30% forks. All log scale. |
License | 10% | Permissive 1.0, weak copyleft 0.75, strong copyleft 0.5, unrecognised 0.5, none 0. |
Tiers: Strong 75 and above, Solid 50, Watch 25, Avoid below 25. The names are chosen to read correctly for a six-week-old project and a six-year-old library alike. Archived repos are capped at 20 and get the verdict "Archived, avoid." A missing license is always named in the verdict.
Verdicts read like "Rising fast, 10.6k downloads/wk, pushed 2 days ago, MIT", "Gaining steadily, 145M downloads/wk, quiet for 6 months, widely used, BSD-3-CLAUSE" or "Slow growth, no push in 60 days, GPL-3.0".
Downloads
GitHub has no download count for repositories, but package registries do. After each snapshot, the enrich step maps JavaScript and TypeScript repos to npm and Python repos to PyPI, then fetches last week's downloads:
A package counts as the repo's only when the registry's own metadata links back to
github.com/<owner>/<repo>. A matching name alone is never enough, so a new repo calledwidgetis not credited with the downloads of an unrelatedwidgetpackage.Candidates tried:
<repo>and@<owner>/<repo>on npm,<repo>on PyPI.Mappings are cached in
registry-map.jsonon thedatabranch. Negatives are re-checked after 7 days, positives kept, downloads refreshed daily.On the first run, 63 of 858 eligible repos mapped to a package. Most repos under a month old are not published yet, which is expected.
Other languages (Rust, Go, Java...) are skipped for now. Cargo, Go and Maven can follow the same pattern.
Caveat: opened from disk, the dashboard has no snapshot history, so momentum uses the fallback. Scores on the Today tab are therefore provisional; the report and the MCP server use real stars-gained figures once there are two or more days of snapshots.
cd whichlib
npm run score # top 25 repos from the latest snapshot with score and verdictMCP server
The same score, served to coding agents. Three tools over stdio:
Tool | Input | What it returns |
|
| The best repositories for the need, ranked by fit (score × relevance), with npm/PyPI downloads and a verdict each. Candidates come from GitHub's relevance order, its stars order and a topic query; see "How recommend finds and ranks candidates" below. |
|
| The repositories side by side, best first, same breakdown. |
|
| Most-starred repos created in the period, scored. |
Every result carries readable text and structuredContent (JSON) with the
score, tier, verdict, the four subscores, flags, packages and downloads.
Requires Node 22 or newer. Install into Claude Code (-s user makes it
available in every project):
claude mcp add whichlib -s user -- npx -y whichlibOr as a Claude Code plugin, which adds a skill that makes Claude check a library with whichlib before adding it:
/plugin marketplace add josifb/whichlib
/plugin install whichlib@whichlibCursor, Windsurf, Claude Desktop and others take the same command in their MCP config:
{ "mcpServers": { "whichlib": { "command": "npx", "args": ["-y", "whichlib"] } } }To run from a clone instead: node whichlib/mcp/server.mjs.
Environment variables, both optional:
GITHUB_TOKENraises GitHub's limits (search 10 to 30 per minute). A fine-grained token with no permissions is enough. Recommend makes three searches per call, so without a token it allows about three recommendations per minute.FRESH_REPOS_DATA_DIRpoints at a folder of daily snapshots. The default iswhichlib/data/snapshots, filled bynpm run pull-data. With two or more days present, momentum uses real 7-day stars gained.WHICHLIB_TELEMETRY=offorDO_NOT_TRACK=1disables anonymous call counting. What is counted: tool name, a random install id, version, platform and Node major version. Never queries, repository names or results. The collector is a small Cloudflare Worker intelemetry/, and its aggregate numbers are public at https://whichlib-telemetry.todorovskijosif.workers.dev/stats.
Try it without a client:
cd whichlib
npm run mcp:smoke # starts the server over stdio, lists tools, calls each oneKnown bias, reduced: maintenance used to drop to zero at 90 days without a push, which put httpx (145M weekly downloads, six quiet months) in "Watch". The curve now runs to a year and the stability guard keeps widely used repos at 0.5 or better; httpx lands in "Solid". Release cadence from the GitHub releases API is the proper long-term signal and is still to come.
Recommendation eval
mcp/eval/needs.json holds 20 needs ("pdf parser" in Python, "state
management" in TypeScript, ...) each with a set of accepted answers a senior
engineer would consider reasonable. npm run eval runs them through
recommend_repos live and reports how often an accepted repo appears at
rank 1, 3 and 5, for our ranking and for baselines built from the same
candidate pool. Reports land in mcp/eval/results/.
Result on 2026-09-27, after query expansion (second report in results/):
Ranking | hit@1 | hit@3 | hit@5 | MRR |
ours (fit, see below) | 75% | 95% | 100% | 0.85 |
GitHub relevance order | 65% | 80% | 95% | 0.76 |
stars order | 45% | 65% | 75% | 0.56 |
score only, no relevance | 30% | 65% | 70% | 0.46 |
The first report, before expansion, had the same hit rates for our ranking (75 / 95 / 100, MRR 0.86) on a smaller pool. Expansion raised recall from 53 to 74 accepted repos across the 20 pools, never fewer on any need, and the baselines fell on that noisier pool while ours held. The fit rules are what keep the noise out.
How recommend finds and ranks candidates
Retrieval, three GitHub searches per need:
Text search in GitHub's relevance order, with known synonyms OR-ed in (
async OR asynchronous runtime), so vocabulary differences stop hiding libraries like tokio.The same text search in stars order, for the big names whose description only mentions the subject.
One topic query sorted by stars (
topic:cli,topic:image-processing), which surfaces what maintainers tagged themselves. The head word is used when it is specific (pdf, cli, orm) and the hyphenated phrase when it is broad (image-processing, state-management). GitHub rejectsORbetween topics, so it is one per request.
Language filters use families: JavaScript includes TypeScript and Python includes Jupyter, because many libraries moved to TypeScript.
Ranking key is fit = score × relevance:
relevance is 1.0 at GitHub relevance rank 1 falling to 0.5 at rank 25, 0.75 when found only through the topic query, 0.4 when found only in the stars order;
×0.75 when the repo names the subject only in its topic tags and ×0.5 when nowhere in its name, description or topics (it matched README text only);
×0.8 when you asked for a framework, library, parser or client and the repo reads like an application rather than a building block.
Both score and fit are returned, with the relevance rank, the sources the
repo came from and the two signals, so an agent can see why.
node mcp/eval/inspect.mjs "<need>" [language] [wanted/repo ...] prints the
whole candidate pool for one need with these values.
Nightly snapshot job
whichlib/snapshot/ is a zero-dependency Node 22 script that stores the
top 100 repos for 3 periods times 9 languages into
whichlib/data/snapshots/YYYY-MM-DD.json. Consecutive snapshots are
what a momentum score needs.
cd whichlib
npm test # 16 unit tests, no network
npm run snapshot # about 3 minutes without a token, 1 minute with GITHUB_TOKENA GitHub Actions workflow (.github/workflows/snapshot.yml)
runs the job every day at 06:17 UTC and commits the result to the data
branch, so history accumulates without bloating main. Trigger it by hand
from the Actions tab or with gh workflow run snapshot. Bring the files down
locally with:
cd whichlib
npm run pull-data # copies new snapshots from origin/data into data/snapshots/
npm run score # now with real 7-day stars gained once there are 2+ daysA Windows Task Scheduler alternative is in
whichlib/README.md.
Repository layout
whichlib/ the npm package: MCP server, score, dashboard, jobs, eval, tests
whichlib/dashboard/ Fresh Repos, one HTML file
whichlib/lib/ score.js, shared by browser and Node
whichlib/mcp/ MCP server: recommend_repos, compare_repos, trending_repos
whichlib/snapshot/ snapshot job, enrichment, history builder, score report
whichlib/server.json MCP registry manifest
telemetry/ call counter: Cloudflare Worker + Analytics Engine
RELEASING.md release stepsRoadmap
Done: dashboard, nightly snapshots, transparent score with tiers and verdicts, npm and PyPI downloads, MCP server with recommend, compare and trending tools.
Named whichlib. Package shape,
server.jsonfor the MCP registry and the call counter are ready; remaining: deploy the counter, make the repository public,npm publish,mcp-publisher publish, list in the Claude Code plugin marketplace and the awesome-mcp lists.Then wait four weeks and read weekly active installs and calls per install. That decides whether the team tier with policy rules gets built.
Later: Cargo, Go and Maven adoption; release cadence in maintenance; downloads in the dashboard; grow the eval past 20 needs from real usage.
License
MIT.
Available Tools
3 toolscompare_reposCompare repositoriesA
Compare two to ten GitHub repositories (owner/repo) side by side: score, tier, stars, forks, open issues, last push, license, npm/PyPI weekly downloads, and a verdict. Sorted best first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repos | Yes | Repository names in the form owner/repo. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real value by disclosing the returned fields and the 'best first' sort order, effectively standing in for the missing output schema, but it says nothing about read-only nature, auth/rate-limit behavior, or what happens with invalid or missing repositories.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with zero filler: action, input form, cardinality, compared fields, and ordering are all front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by naming the returned metrics and sort order. It falls slightly short on error/edge-case behavior (nonexistent repos, private repos) that an agent might need for a multi-input comparison tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the owner/repo format and the 2-10 item bounds. The description restates 'two to ten' and '(owner/repo)' without adding syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (compare) and resource (GitHub repositories), gives the accepted input format (owner/repo), the cardinality range (two to ten), and enumerates the compared dimensions and output ordering. An agent can immediately tell this apart from recommend_repos and trending_repos.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the usage context (side-by-side comparison of a known set of repos) but never says when to prefer this over recommend_repos or trending_repos, nor any exclusion or prerequisite. Usage is only inferable from the name and field list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
recommend_reposRecommend repositoriesA
Given a need in plain words (e.g. "python pdf parser", "react state management"), return the best open-source repositories ranked by a transparent 0–100 score (momentum 40%, maintenance 25%, adoption incl. npm/PyPI downloads 25%, license 10%) with a one-line verdict each. Use before adding a dependency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| need | Yes | What you need, in a few words. | |
| limit | No | How many recommendations to return. | |
| language | No | GitHub language name, e.g. "TypeScript", "Python", "C++". |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the exact scoring model (momentum 40%, maintenance 25%, adoption incl. npm/PyPI downloads 25%, license 10%), so the agent understands the ranking is deterministic and transparent rather than opaque. It does not cover latency, rate limits, or empty-result behavior, but for a read-only recommendation tool the scoring disclosure is the materially important trait.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with the core behavior and result shape in one dense sentence, followed by a short usage cue. Nothing is wasted, though the scoring-weight parenthetical makes the first sentence long enough to border on overloaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description does explain the return shape (ranked list, score breakdown, one-line verdicts), which is exactly what's needed. Its only meaningful omission is disambiguating itself from trending_repos and compare_repos, which an agent choosing among three repo tools would want.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value for `need` by giving concrete examples ("python pdf parser", "react state management") that clarify phrasing, but says nothing about `limit` or `language` beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Names a specific verb (recommend) and resource (open-source repositories) and describes the returned artifact precisely: repos ranked by a transparent 0–100 score with a one-line verdict each. Sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit — it never names compare_repos or trending_repos, but the 'ranked by score' framing separates it functionally.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
"Use before adding a dependency" gives a clear triggering context. It stops short of when-not-to-use guidance and never names the sibling tools as alternatives for related tasks (e.g. comparing two known candidates).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
trending_reposTrending repositoriesA
Most-starred repositories created in the last day, week or month, optionally filtered by language, each scored. Set withDownloads to also look up npm/PyPI weekly downloads (slower).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| period | No | week | |
| language | No | GitHub language name, e.g. "TypeScript", "Python", "C++". | |
| withDownloads | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that withDownloads triggers extra network lookups and is 'slower,' and hints at the return content ('each scored'), but says nothing about rate limits, auth requirements, or pagination behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that front-loads the core behavior and appends the optional-filter caveats. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant with the name or title.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, the ranking metric, the filter, and the costly optional flag. Missing detail on the limit parameter and safety profile keeps it short of complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 25% (only language is documented in the schema). The description compensates well for withDownloads by explaining it fetches npm/PyPI weekly downloads, and restates the period choices, but says nothing about the 'limit' parameter or the meaning of the score, leaving a genuine gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific resource and ranking criterion ('Most-starred repositories created in the last day, week or month') plus the optional filters, so an agent immediately knows what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings recommend_repos or compare_repos, which the agent must infer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives actionable conditional guidance for one parameter: 'Set withDownloads to also look up npm/PyPI weekly downloads (slower),' which tells the agent both when to enable it and the cost tradeoff. It offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over recommend_repos or compare_repos.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
3 tool updates
v0.1.0- First observed
compare_repos - First observed
recommend_repos - First observed
trending_repos
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool targets a distinct use case: recommend_repos for need-based discovery, compare_repos for side-by-side evaluation of specific repos, and trending_repos for time-based popularity. The input parameters and outputs are clearly differentiated, leaving no ambiguity about which tool to use.
All names use snake_case and end with '_repos', but 'recommend' and 'compare' are imperative verbs while 'trending' is a gerund/adjective, creating a minor inconsistency in the verb form. The pattern is still largely predictable and readable.
With only three tools, the set is tightly focused on the core tasks of discovering, comparing, and trending repositories. Each tool earns its place without redundancy, and the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose.
The tools cover the main lifecycle: finding repos by need, comparing specific repos, and seeing trending repos. A minor gap exists in retrieving detailed information for a single repository by name, which would require comparing it with another repo, but this is not a critical dead end.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Code intelligence for LLMs. Analyze, search, and retrieve code from any public git repository.
Search GitHub, npm, PyPI, StackOverflow, ArXiv from one MCP — built for coding agents.
Discover, compare, and monitor 1,400+ APIs directly from your AI coding agent.
Finds real, maintained open-source repos that fit your project. MCP grounding for coding agents.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables natural language queries to search GitHub for trending repositories by topic, summarize project READMEs, and compare multiple repos to uncover ecosystem patterns.2-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to perform GitHub analytics and management tasks, including repository analysis, PR summarization, issue triage, release notes generation, and contributor statistics.29 npmMIT
- FlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables searching and inspecting GitHub repositories, including topic and trending searches, repo overviews, file browsing, commit history, branches, and side-by-side repo comparisons.91-
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI agents to discover and evaluate GitHub repositories from natural-language feature descriptions, returning ranked adoption-grade candidates with evidence and quality signals.31MIT