Provides tools for automating GitHub contributions, including forking repositories, cloning, creating branches, syncing with upstream, generating patches, running tests, committing and pushing changes, creating and updating pull requests, handling merge conflicts, and updating PRs based on maintainer feedback.
Click on "Install 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., "@GitPilot MCP analyze issue #42 and create a PR with a fix"
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.
An autonomous MCP-powered agent that automates GitHub contributions end-to-end, from issue analysis and code changes to pull requests, conflict resolution, and review updates.
GitPilot MCP is an Autonomous GitHub Contribution Agent built using the Model Context Protocol (MCP). It helps developers and contributors automate the full open-source workflow:
Forking repositories
Analyzing issues
Making code changes
Running tests
Creating pull requests
Syncing with upstream changes
Handling merge conflicts
Updating PRs based on maintainer feedback
The agent is designed to be minimal, safe, and extensible, without overengineering.
Related MCP server: Chiro ERP - Issue Pipeline Orchestrator
🔁 Fork & clone GitHub repositories
🌿 Create and manage feature branches
🔄 Sync fork with upstream when new PRs are merged
🧠 Semantic code understanding using RAG
✍️ Generate minimal, clean git diffs
🧪 Run tests and retry fixes automatically
📦 Commit & push changes
🔀 Create pull requests programmatically
🛠️ Update existing PRs after review feedback
⚠️ Detect merge conflicts before PR updates
Issue → Code Context (RAG) → Patch → Tests → Commit → PR
↑
Sync / Review FeedbackThe system follows real-world open-source contribution practices.
mcp-github/
│
├── main.py # MCP server & tools
├── rag.py # RAG indexing and search
├── config.py # GitHub token & workspace
├── .rag/ # Vector store (local)
└── README.mdMake sure you have the following installed:
Python 3.10+
Git
Claude Desktop (latest version)
Ollama (for embeddings)
uv is used for dependency management and isolated execution.
pip install uvgit clone https://github.com/<your-username>/GitPilot-MCP.git
cd GitPilot-MCPInitialize the project environment:
uv initAdd all required dependencies:
uv add fastmcp gitpython pygithub python-dotenv numpy faiss-cpu ollamauv run fastmcp dev main.pyUse the following configuration to run the MCP server locally via uv + fastmcp in Claude-desktop:
paste this configuration in claudee-desktop-config file.
{
"mcpServers": {
"GitPilot-MCP": {
"command": "<PATH_TO_PYTHON>/Scripts/uv.exe",
"args": [
"run",
"--project",
"<PATH_TO_PROJECT_ROOT>",
"--directory",
"<PATH_TO_PROJECT_ROOT>",
"fastmcp",
"run",
"main.py"
],
"transport": "stdio"
}
}
}Create a config.py file:
GITHUB_TOKEN = "your_github_personal_access_token"
WORKSPACE = "./workspace"⚠️ The token must have permissions to fork repositories and create pull requests.
Some important tools exposed by the agent:
fork_repo
clone_repo
create_branch
sync_with_upstream
index_repo
get_repo_context
apply_patch
run_tests
retry_fix_with_tests
commit_and_push
create_pull_request
check_for_conflicts
update_pr_after_feedback
Each tool is single-responsibility and composable.
Apply generated patch
Run tests (pytest -q by default)
Retry fixes automatically if tests fail
Stop immediately once tests pass
When a maintainer requests changes:
Generate a new patch
Apply it to the same branch
Commit & push
The existing PR updates automatically. No new PRs are created.
✅ Minimal diffs
✅ Short, inline comments only when necessary
✅ No hard refresh or destructive git actions
✅ No silent failures
✅ Extensible for future improvements
Repository indexing may be limited on very large repos
Conflict resolution is assisted, not fully automatic
Designed for local / controlled environments (remote hardening can be added later)
Scoped repository indexing
PR comment parsing
CI status polling
Refresh-token support
Remote multi-user MCP deployment
MIT License (or as per your choice)
Built using:
FastMCP
GitPython
PyGitHub
Ollama (for embeddings)
Qdrant / FAISS (vector search)
Divyanshu Giri
Apply a git patch to the repository.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo_path | Yes | ||
| patch | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits, such as whether the patch is applied in-place, if it creates commits, or what happens on conflict. For a mutation tool, this 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise, and front-loaded with the key action. However, its brevity sacrifices necessary detail, earning a slightly lower score.
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?
Given that applying a patch can have side effects like conflicts or failed merges, the description lacks completeness. No mention of failure modes, rollback, or related tools like 'check_for_conflicts' is provided, which would be essential for an agent.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not elaborate on the parameters. It does not clarify the expected format of 'patch' (e.g., unified diff) or the path semantics of 'repo_path', leaving the agent with no additional meaning.
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 'Apply a git patch to the repository' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action and target. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like 'check_for_conflicts' or 'commit_and_push', which serve different purposes.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as checking for conflicts first or committing after. An agent receives no context about prerequisites or typical workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check if there are merge conflicts with upstream.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo_path | Yes | ||
| base | No | main |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It implies read-only operation but does not state side effects, response format, or how conflicts are reported. Output schema exists but 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but lacks essential details. It is under-specified rather than efficiently packed.
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?
Despite having an output schema and 2 parameters, the description provides insufficient context. It does not explain what 'conflicts' means, how to interpret results, or error conditions.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, description adds no meaning to `repo_path` or `base`. Parameters are completely unexplained beyond schema field names.
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 uses a verb ('Check') and a clear resource ('merge conflicts with upstream'), distinguishing it from siblings like `sync_with_upstream` which likely performs the merge. However, 'upstream' is vague without specifying which remote or branch.
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?
No guidance on when to use versus alternatives such as `sync_with_upstream`. The description does not mention prerequisites or context needed before calling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Clone a repository to the workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo_url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states a basic action. It does not disclose whether it overwrites existing directories, authentication requirements, or any side effects.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no extraneous words.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool and presence of an output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks information on destination, conflict handling, and prerequisites, making it insufficient for complete understanding.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the repo_url parameter beyond its name. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning or format guidance.
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 clearly states the action (clone) and the resource (repository to workspace). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools which include other git operations but not clone.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fork_repo or sync_with_upstream. The user must infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Commit changes and push to origin.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo_path | Yes | ||
| message | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behaviors like whether it stages changes, handles conflicts, or requires a clean working directory. It only says 'commit and push', omitting critical side effects.
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?
Extremely concise, but at the expense of necessary detail. Every word matters, but the description is too sparse to be helpful.
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?
Given the number of sibling git tools and the presence of an output schema, the description fails to provide enough context. It does not mention what happens after the operation, such as return values or error conditions.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters. 'repo_path' and 'message' are ambiguous without context; the description should clarify what these represent (e.g., local git repository path, commit message).
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 clearly states the action: commit changes and push to origin. It distinguishes from siblings like clone_repo or create_branch, but could be more specific about what 'changes' means (e.g., all uncommitted changes or staged only).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apply_patch or check_for_conflicts. The description does not set expectations about workflow prerequisites or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create or checkout a branch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo_path | Yes | ||
| branch_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action ('create or checkout') but omits critical details such as whether checking out switches the working directory, what happens if the branch already exists, or any side effects.
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?
The description is extremely short (6 words) but lacks necessary detail. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise, missing key information that would justify its brevity.
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 tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description fails to explain the return value, conditions under which the operation fails, or how the 'checkout' action differs from 'create'. It is incomplete for an AI agent to use reliably.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters (`repo_path`, `branch_name`) beyond their names. The agent gets no additional meaning about what these parameters represent or any constraints.
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 'Create or checkout a branch,' which identifies the main action and resource. However, it bundles two distinct operations without clarification, making the purpose somewhat vague compared to more specific sibling tools.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `apply_patch` or `commit_and_push`. The description lacks context for selecting this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo_input | Yes | ||
| head_branch | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| base | No | main |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fork a GitHub repository to your account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo_input | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description only says 'Fork a GitHub repository,' which implies a write operation, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or outcome. Minimal behavioral context.
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?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the action. However, it may be too terse for effective use.
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 1-parameter tool, the description should clarify parameter format and output. With 0% schema coverage and missing parameter guidance, it is incomplete.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'repo_input' parameter (e.g., format, required pattern). No additional meaning 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?
Description clearly states the tool forks a repository, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like clone_repo or sync_with_upstream.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., clone_repo, create_branch). The description merely states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about the centralized index storage location.
Returns: Dictionary with storage path and statistics
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read-only operation returning a dictionary with storage path and statistics, which matches the tool's name. However, without annotations, it does not disclose potential risks (e.g., authentication requirements) or side effects beyond the implied non-destructive nature.
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?
The description is concise with two short sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and return value. Every sentence is meaningful and there is no extraneous content.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the output (storage path and statistics) and indicates the tool is informational. The output schema likely covers return structure, so completeness is high.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add meaning beyond the input schema. Per guidelines, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description satisfies that.
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 clearly states it 'Get information about the centralized index storage location' and specifies the return format, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like index_repo or list_indexed_repositories.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to check storage vs. listing repositories). The context of sibling tools implies its use for storage info, but no direct usage context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get details about a GitHub issue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo_input | Yes | ||
| issue_number | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, scope of details returned, or any side effects. The minimal phrase 'Get details' is insufficient.
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?
The description is concise (one sentence) with no wasted words, but it is too short to convey necessary information. It sacrifices substance for brevity.
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?
Given the existence of an output schema and the complexity of retrieving a GitHub issue, the description should indicate what details are returned (e.g., title, body, comments) or any prerequisites. It is incomplete.
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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not mention 'repo_input' or 'issue_number' at all, leaving their meaning and format implicit. The schema provides type info but no semantic context.
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 clearly states 'Get details about a GitHub issue', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like 'get_repo_context' by focusing on a single issue, but does not elaborate further.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_repo_context' or other issue-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search the indexed repository for relevant code chunks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo_path | Yes | Absolute path to the repository | |
| query | Yes | Search query (e.g., "LSTM implementation") | |
| k | No | Number of results to return (default: 6) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the burden is on the description to disclose behavioral traits, but it only states a generic search action. It fails to mention that the tool is read-only, whether it requires any permissions, or what happens if the repository is not indexed.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it lacks structuring that would improve scannability, such as separating purpose from parameters. It is efficient yet minimal.
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?
The description omits important context like prerequisites (indexed repository), return format (even though output schema exists), and limitations. For a search tool, more details on query capabilities and result scoping would be expected.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already documents all parameters adequately.
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 clearly states the tool searches an indexed repository for relevant code chunks, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like index_repo and list_indexed_repositories.
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?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when the repository needs indexing first or when to use reindex_repository. The description implies the repository must be indexed but does not state this explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Index a repository for semantic code search.
The index is stored in a centralized location to avoid polluting the repository with .rag folders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo_path | Yes | Absolute path to the repository to index |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so description carries burden. It reveals storage location and non-pollution of repo, but doesn't discuss idempotency, overwriting, or side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, and storage note is concise and relevant.
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?
Tool is simple with one parameter and output schema exists. Description covers key points for usage and storage. Missing minor details like return value but overall 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 100% with one parameter described as 'Absolute path to the repository to index'. Description adds no extra meaning about format or constraints, meeting baseline for high coverage.
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?
Description clearly states 'Index a repository for semantic code search' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'reindex_repository' and 'list_indexed_repositories' by focusing on the initial indexing action.
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?
Description implies when to use (initial index) but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives like 'reindex_repository' or when not to use. No exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all repositories that have been indexed.
Returns: Dictionary with count and list of indexed repositories
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clearly indicates that the tool lists indexed repositories, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. No annotations are provided, but the description itself is sufficient for understanding the tool's behavior. It does not contradict any annotations.
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?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, no redundant information, and front-loaded with the primary action and resource.
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?
Given no parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the function and the return format. Minor omission: it doesn't explicitly state that no arguments are needed, but that is obvious from the empty schema.
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?
The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by specifying the return structure (dictionary with count and list), compensating for the lack of parameters.
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 clearly states the action (list) and resource (repositories that have been indexed). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like index_repo and reindex_repository by focusing on the listing aspect.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the context of sibling tools implies its use for checking indexed repos, the description itself does not offer explicit recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Re-index a repository (useful after code changes).
This will delete the old index and create a fresh one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo_path | Yes | Absolute path to the repository |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries the burden. It explicitly states the destructive behavior: 'delete the old index and create a fresh one', which is valuable. However, it omits details like required permissions or potential runtime.
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?
Two concise sentences, no waste. Front-loaded with the action and purpose, followed by a critical behavioral note.
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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately explains the core action and side effect. Minor omissions (e.g., impact on indexing state) but still reasonably 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the only parameter (repo_path). The description adds no extra meaning beyond this, meeting baseline expectations.
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 clearly states 'Re-index a repository' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like 'index_repo' (initial indexing) by noting it's useful after code changes.
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 provides context ('useful after code changes') but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison to alternatives such as 'index_repo' for first-time indexing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Helper tool for Claude to manage test-fix loops. Claude should:
Call run_tests
If failed, generate a patch and apply_patch
Repeat until success or retries exhausted
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo_path | Yes | ||
| max_retries | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only instructs the agent on steps to perform (call run_tests, generate patch, apply_patch) without explaining what the tool itself actually does, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. This 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and includes a numbered list, making it easy to read. However, it is structured as agent instructions rather than a tool definition, and some sentences could be merged. It is adequately concise.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (orchestrating multiple steps) and the presence of an output schema, the description should still explain what the tool returns and how it behaves. It only provides a workflow guide, leaving gaps in understanding how to invoke the tool correctly and what to expect.
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 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter (repo_path, max_retries) or explain their meaning and usage. The description adds no value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
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 clearly states the tool manages 'test-fix loops' and distinguishes it from siblings like run_tests and apply_patch by outlining a coordination workflow. However, it frames the description as instructions to Claude rather than describing what the tool itself does, which slightly reduces clarity.
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 provides a clear procedure for using the tool in test-fix loops and implicitly references sibling tools (run_tests, apply_patch). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives, but the context implies this is for iterative fix attempts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Run tests inside the repository. Returns stdout, stderr, and exit code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo_path | Yes | ||
| command | No | pytest -q |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions that the tool returns stdout, stderr, and exit code, which is helpful. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose other behavioral aspects such as whether the repository is modified, execution environment, or potential side effects, leaving significant gaps.
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?
The description is exceptionally concise with two short sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and includes essential output information without any redundant or superfluous content.
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?
While the description notes return values, it omits critical context for a test-running tool: execution directory, handling of timeouts, test result interpretation, and prerequisites. Given the tool's potential impact and the absence of annotations, the description is insufficient for complete understanding.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add meaning to the parameters, but it does not mention 'repo_path' or 'command' at all. The default value for 'command' is given in the schema but not explained in the description, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter usage.
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 'Run tests inside the repository' which is a clear verb-resource pairing. It effectively conveys the tool's function, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'retry_fix_with_tests'.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or scenarios where it might be inappropriate. The description solely defines what the tool does without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Sync local fork with upstream repository.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo_path | Yes | ||
| upstream_repo | Yes | ||
| base | No | main |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the high-level action, omitting details like whether it fetches, merges, handles conflicts, or requires permissions. This is insufficient for safe usage.
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?
While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concisely complete. It lacks necessary detail and does not efficiently convey all needed information.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to provide enough context about the tool's behavior, side effects, or parameter details. The agent cannot invoke it correctly without guessing.
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 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It does not explain the meaning of repo_path, upstream_repo, or base, leaving the agent without crucial context.
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 clearly states it syncs a local fork with an upstream repository, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like fork_repo or clone_repo, but could be more precise about the sync direction (fetch/merge versus push).
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like clone_repo, fork_repo, or apply_patch, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo_path | Yes | ||
| patch | Yes | ||
| commit_message | No | Address PR review feedback |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.0apply_patchcheck_for_conflictsclone_repocommit_and_pushcreate_branchcreate_pull_requestfork_repoget_index_storage_infoget_issueget_repo_contextindex_repolist_indexed_repositoriesreindex_repositoryretry_fix_with_testsrun_testssync_with_upstreamupdate_pr_after_feedbackMost tools have distinct purposes, though create_pull_request and update_pr_after_feedback lack descriptions, causing ambiguity. retry_fix_with_tests is a meta-tool but clear in its intent. Overall, minimal overlap.
Tools predominantly use snake_case with verbs, but some are phrases like check_for_conflicts and retry_fix_with_tests, breaking consistency. get_index_storage_info uses 'info' instead of a standard noun.
With 17 tools, it covers a wide range of git/GitHub operations. Some tools like get_index_storage_info are niche but still relevant. Slightly above ideal but reasonable.
Core workflows (clone, branch, commit, PR) are present, but missing operations like branch deletion, merge, and issue creation. Indexing feature adds unique functionality but gaps remain.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Connect AI assistants to GitHub - manage repos, issues, PRs, and workflows through natural language.
Coding agents build full-stack apps in persistent workspaces and share them by link.
Autonomous cloud agent tasks: real browser + your tools, structured evidence-backed results.
AI-native git hosting — repos, PRs, issues, CI gates, and AI code review over MCP (60 tools).
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Divyanshu-hash/GitPilot-MCP'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
