Skip to main content
Glama

Social Fetch

by io.github.social-freak-ltd

Get GitHub contribution graph

github_profile_contributions_get
Read-only

Get the contribution graph for a GitHub profile for a given year. Accepts a username.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearNoCalendar year for the contribution graph. Default: current calendar year.
handleYesGitHub username to look up, with or without a leading @.
contextYesDescribe the user's underlying goal in one sentence — not the tool you are calling.
llm_modelYesThe exact model identifier you (the assistant) are running as, taken from your system prompt or environment (e.g. "claude-opus-4-8", "gpt-5.2"). Used for analytics only. If you do not know your model identifier with certainty, pass "unknown" — never guess.
conversation_idNoEcho the conversation_id from the server's previous response. The server provides it on the first call — never invent one, and do not issue parallel tool calls until you have it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / context
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Describe the user's underlying goal in one sentence — not the tool you are calling.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / conversation_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Echo the conversation_id from the server's previous response. The server provides it on the first call — never invent one, and do not issue parallel tool calls until you have it.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / llm_model
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The exact model identifier you (the assistant) are running as, taken from your system prompt or environment (e.g. \"claude-opus-4-8\", \"gpt-5.2\"). Used for analytics only. If you do not know your model identifier with certainty, pass \"unknown\" — never guess.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "handle"
-]New value: +[
+  "handle",
+  "context",
+  "llm_model"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  4. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / year / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / year / maximum
      Added value: +2100
    • addedInput schema / properties / year / minimum
      Added value: +2007
    • addedInput schema / properties / year / type
      Added value: +"integer"
  5. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / year / description
      Previous value: -"Calendar year for the contribution graph. Defaults to the current year when omitted."New value: +"Calendar year for the contribution graph. Default: current calendar year."
  6. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds the year-scoping behavior and username input. It doesn't describe what the graph data looks like, whether it supports handles with/without @, or how it behaves for inactive users — the schema covers the @ detail, but behavioral output remains unspecified. With annotations already carrying the safety profile, a 3 is fair.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the core purpose and time scope. Every word earns its place. The description is appropriately brief for a simple read-only lookup tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only single-resource tool with 100% schema coverage and readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description plus schema is largely sufficient. It doesn't describe the response shape, but there is no output schema and the graph's content is predictable from the name. A 4 is justified because the only notable gap is the absence of any guidance on what the graph data contains or edge cases like missing years, which is minor for this tool's simplicity.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond restating that a username is accepted and the year is a calendar year. The 'Accepts a username' line slightly reinforces that handle can include a leading @, which the schema also states. Baseline 3 is correct because the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('contribution graph for a GitHub profile'), and temporal scope ('for a given year'), plus the primary input ('Accepts a username'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like github_profile_activity_list, github_profile_get, and github_profile_repositories_list because it targets the contribution graph specifically, which no sibling name mentions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description conveys the core usage context: call it to retrieve a GitHub profile's contribution graph for a year, accepting a username. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives like github_profile_activity_list, but the tool name and description make the use case clear enough. A 4 is appropriate because it gives clear context but lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.

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

All Social Fetch toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool is clearly scoped to a specific platform and action (e.g., facebook_post_get vs instagram_post_get). Descriptions explicitly differentiate similar tools across platforms, and within-a-platform tools like tiktok_search_videos_list vs tiktok_search_hashtag_list have clear disambiguation notes.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 167 tools follow a strict `platform_resource_action` pattern (e.g., youtube_video_comments_list). No mixing of styles—snake_case throughout, with consistent verb ordering (get, list, search, etc.).

Tool Count2/5

The server has 167 tools, which is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the broad multi-platform scope justifies many tools, this extreme number makes the tool surface overwhelming and difficult for an agent to navigate efficiently.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of platforms and operations including profile retrieval, post/video fetching, comments, search, transcripts, and ad library access. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no Facebook events or LinkedIn messaging), but the surface is comprehensive for a read-only data aggregation use case.

Resources