GitHub Enterprise MCP Server
This server provides an MCP interface to interact with GitHub Enterprise API (also compatible with GitHub.com and GitHub Enterprise Cloud with some limitations) for AI tools like Cursor.
Capabilities include:
Repository Management: Retrieve repository lists and details, list branches, get file/directory contents, create/update/delete repositories
Pull Requests & Issues: List, create, get details, merge PRs, manage issues, and retrieve/add comments
GitHub Actions: List workflows and workflow runs, trigger workflows
User Management: List, create, update, suspend/unsuspend users (Enterprise only)
Enterprise Features: Access license information and system statistics (requires site admin permissions)
Provides access to GitHub Enterprise and GitHub.com repositories, enabling repository management, branch listing, file content retrieval, and issue/PR handling through the GitHub API.
Offers tools for listing, viewing, and triggering GitHub Actions workflows, with capabilities for managing workflow runs and filtering by branch or status.
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., "@GitHub Enterprise MCP Serverlist open pull requests in the backend repository"
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.
GitHub Enterprise MCP Server
An MCP (Model Context Protocol) server for integration with GitHub Enterprise API. This server provides an MCP interface to easily access repository information, issues, PRs, and more from GitHub Enterprise in Cursor.
Compatibility
This project is primarily designed for GitHub Enterprise Server environments, but it also works with:
GitHub.com
GitHub Enterprise Cloud
Note: Some enterprise-specific features (like license information and enterprise statistics) will not work with GitHub.com or GitHub Enterprise Cloud.
Related MCP server: GitHub CLI MCP Server
Key Features
Retrieve repository list from GitHub Enterprise instances
Get detailed repository information
List repository branches
View file and directory contents
Manage issues and pull requests
Repository management (create, update, delete)
GitHub Actions workflows management
User management (list, create, update, delete, suspend/unsuspend users)
Access enterprise statistics
Enhanced error handling and user-friendly response formatting
Getting Started
Prerequisites
Node.js 18 or higher
Access to a GitHub Enterprise instance
Personal Access Token (PAT)
Docker Installation and Setup
Option 1: Running with Docker
Build the Docker image:
docker build -t github-enterprise-mcp .Run the Docker container with environment variables:
docker run -p 3000:3000 \ -e GITHUB_TOKEN="your_github_token" \ -e GITHUB_ENTERPRISE_URL="https://github.your-company.com/api/v3" \ -e DEBUG=true \ github-enterprise-mcp
Note: The Dockerfile is configured to run with
--transport httpby default. If you need to change this, you can override the command:
docker run -p 3000:3000 \
-e GITHUB_TOKEN="your_github_token" \
-e GITHUB_ENTERPRISE_URL="https://github.your-company.com/api/v3" \
-e DEBUG=true \
github-enterprise-mcp node dist/index.js --transport http --debugOption 2: Using Docker Compose
Create a
.envfile in the project root with the required environment variables:GITHUB_ENTERPRISE_URL=https://github.your-company.com/api/v3 GITHUB_TOKEN=your_github_token DEBUG=trueStart the container with Docker Compose:
docker-compose up -dCheck the logs:
docker-compose logs -fStop the container:
docker-compose down
Installation and Setup
Local Development (Using Concurrent Mode)
This method is recommended for active development with automatic recompilation and server restarts:
Clone the repository and install required packages:
git clone https://github.com/ddukbg/github-enterprise-mcp.git cd github-enterprise-mcp npm installRun the development server:
export GITHUB_TOKEN="your_github_token" export GITHUB_ENTERPRISE_URL="https://github.your-company.com/api/v3" npm run devThis will:
Compile TypeScript code automatically when files change
Restart the server when compiled files are updated
Run the server in HTTP mode for URL-based connections
Connect to Cursor using URL mode as described below
Installation and Setup for Production
Option 1: Using URL Mode (Recommended for Local Development)
This method is the most stable and recommended for local development or testing:
Clone the repository and install required packages:
git clone https://github.com/ddukbg/github-enterprise-mcp.git cd github-enterprise-mcp npm installBuild the project:
npm run build chmod +x dist/index.jsRun the server:
export GITHUB_TOKEN="your_github_token" export GITHUB_ENTERPRISE_URL="https://github.your-company.com/api/v3" node dist/index.js --transport http --debugConnect to Cursor using URL mode:
Add the following to your Cursor's
.cursor/mcp.jsonfile:
{ "mcpServers": { "github-enterprise": { "url": "http://localhost:3000/sse" } } }
Option 2: Install as a Global Command (npm link)
This method is useful for local development:
# After cloning the repository
git clone https://github.com/ddukbg/github-enterprise-mcp.git
cd github-enterprise-mcp
# Install required packages
npm install
# Build
npm run build
chmod +x dist/index.js
# Link globally
npm link
# Run as a global command
export GITHUB_TOKEN="your_github_token"
export GITHUB_ENTERPRISE_URL="https://github.your-company.com/api/v3"
github-enterprise-mcp --transport=http --debugOption 3: Using npx (When Package is Published)
If the package is published to the public npm registry:
npx @ddukbg/github-enterprise-mcp --token=your_github_token --github-enterprise-url=https://github.your-company.com/api/v3Integration with AI Tools
Claude Desktop
Add the following to your claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"github-enterprise": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@ddukbg/github-enterprise-mcp", "--token=YOUR_GITHUB_TOKEN", "--github-enterprise-url=YOUR_GITHUB_ENTERPRISE_URL"]
}
}
}Replace YOUR_GITHUB_TOKEN and YOUR_GITHUB_ENTERPRISE_URL with your actual values.
Cursor
Recommended: URL Mode (Most Stable)
For the most reliable operation in Cursor, using URL mode is recommended:
Start the server in a separate terminal window:
cd /path/to/github-enterprise-mcp GITHUB_ENTERPRISE_URL="https://github.your-company.com/api/v3" GITHUB_TOKEN="your_github_token" node dist/index.js --transport httpConfigure Cursor's MCP settings:
Open Cursor and go to Settings
Navigate to AI > MCP Servers
Edit your
.cursor/mcp.jsonfile:
{ "mcpServers": { "github-enterprise": { "url": "http://localhost:3000/sse" } } }Restart Cursor to apply the changes
Alternative: Command Mode
Alternatively, you can configure Cursor to use the command mode, although URL mode is more reliable:
Open Cursor and go to Settings
Navigate to AI > MCP Servers
Click Add MCP Server
Enter the following details:
Name: GitHub Enterprise
Command:
npxArguments:
@ddukbg/github-enterprise-mcpEnvironment Variables:
GITHUB_ENTERPRISE_URL: Your GitHub Enterprise API URLGITHUB_TOKEN: Your GitHub personal access token
Alternatively, you can manually edit your .cursor/mcp.json file to include:
{
"mcpServers": {
"github-enterprise": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"@ddukbg/github-enterprise-mcp"
],
"env": {
"GITHUB_ENTERPRISE_URL": "https://github.your-company.com/api/v3",
"GITHUB_TOKEN": "your_github_token"
}
}
}
}Language Configuration
This MCP server supports both English and Korean languages. You can configure the language using:
Environment Variables
# Set language to Korean
export LANGUAGE=ko
# Or in .env file
LANGUAGE=koCommand-line Arguments
# Set language to Korean
node dist/index.js --language koThe default language is English if not specified.
Additional Options in HTTP Mode
--debug: Enable debug logging--github-enterprise-url <URL>: Set GitHub Enterprise API URL--token <TOKEN>: Set GitHub Personal Access Token--language <LANG>: Set language (en or ko, default: en)
Available MCP Tools
This MCP server provides the following tools:
Tool Name | Description | Parameters | Required PAT Permissions |
| Retrieve repository list for a user or organization |
|
|
| Get detailed repository information |
|
|
| List branches of a repository |
|
|
| Retrieve file or directory contents |
|
|
| List pull requests in a repository |
|
|
| Get pull request details |
|
|
| Create a new pull request |
|
|
| Merge a pull request |
|
|
| List issues in a repository |
|
|
| Get issue details |
|
|
| List comments on an issue or pull request |
|
|
| Create a new issue |
|
|
| Create a new repository |
|
|
| Update repository settings |
|
|
| Delete a repository |
|
|
| List GitHub Actions workflows |
|
|
| List workflow runs |
|
|
| Trigger a workflow |
|
|
| Get GitHub Enterprise license information | - | Requires site_admin (Administrator) account |
| Get GitHub Enterprise system statistics | - | Requires site_admin (Administrator) account |
Note: For Enterprise-specific tools (
get-license-infoandget-enterprise-stats), a user with site administrator privileges is required. A Classic Personal Access Token is recommended, as Fine-grained tokens may not support these Enterprise-level permissions.
Using the Tools in Cursor
Once you have set up the MCP server and configured Cursor to connect to it, you can use the GitHub Enterprise tools directly in Cursor's AI chat. Here are some examples:
Listing Repositories
mcp_github_enterprise_list_repositories(owner="octocat")Getting Repository Information
mcp_github_enterprise_get_repository(owner="octocat", repo="hello-world")Listing Pull Requests
mcp_github_enterprise_list_pull_requests(owner="octocat", repo="hello-world", state="open")Managing Issues
# List issues
mcp_github_enterprise_list_issues(owner="octocat", repo="hello-world", state="all")
# Get issue details
mcp_github_enterprise_get_issue(owner="octocat", repo="hello-world", issue_number=1)
# Get issue/PR comments
mcp_github_enterprise_list_issue_comments(owner="octocat", repo="hello-world", issue_number=1)
# Create a new issue
mcp_github_enterprise_create_issue(
owner="octocat",
repo="hello-world",
title="Found a bug",
body="Here is a description of the bug",
labels=["bug", "important"]
)Working with Repository Content
mcp_github_enterprise_get_content(owner="octocat", repo="hello-world", path="README.md")Repository Management
# Create a new repository
mcp_github_enterprise_create_repository(
name="new-project",
description="This is a new project",
private=true,
auto_init=true
)
# Update repository settings
mcp_github_enterprise_update_repository(
owner="octocat",
repo="hello-world",
description="Updated description",
has_issues=true
)User Management (Enterprise Only)
These features are specifically designed for GitHub Enterprise Server environments and require administrative permissions:
# List all users in the GitHub Enterprise instance
mcp_github_enterprise_list_users(filter="active", per_page=100)
# Get a specific user's details
mcp_github_enterprise_get_user(username="octocat")
# Create a new user (Enterprise only)
mcp_github_enterprise_create_user(
login="newuser",
email="newuser@example.com",
name="New User",
company="ACME Inc."
)
# Update a user's information (Enterprise only)
mcp_github_enterprise_update_user(
username="octocat",
email="updated-email@example.com",
location="San Francisco"
)
# Suspend a user (Enterprise only)
mcp_github_enterprise_suspend_user(
username="octocat",
reason="Violation of terms of service"
)
# Unsuspend a user (Enterprise only)
mcp_github_enterprise_unsuspend_user(username="octocat")
# List organizations a user belongs to
mcp_github_enterprise_list_user_orgs(username="octocat")API Improvements
Flexible API URL configuration (supports various environment variables and command-line arguments)
Enhanced error handling and timeout management
User-friendly response formatting and messages
Contributing
Contributions are welcome! Please feel free to submit a Pull Request.
License
ISC
Available Tools
28 toolscreate-issueD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | Issue content | |
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| owner | Yes | Repository owner (user or organization) | |
| title | Yes | Issue title | |
| labels | No | Label list | |
| assignees | No | Assignee list | |
| milestone | No | Milestone ID |
TDQS
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.
create-pull-requestD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | Repository owner (user or organization) | |
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| title | Yes | Pull request title | |
| head | Yes | Head branch (e.g., 'username:feature' or just 'feature' for same repo) | |
| base | Yes | Base branch (e.g., 'main') | |
| body | No | Pull request description | |
| draft | No | Create as draft PR |
TDQS
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.
create-repositoryD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Repository name | |
| description | No | Repository description | |
| private | No | Whether the repository is private | |
| auto_init | No | Initialize with README | |
| gitignore_template | No | Add .gitignore template | |
| license_template | No | Add a license template | |
| org | No | Organization name (if creating in an organization) |
TDQS
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.
create-userD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bio | No | Biography for the user | |
| blog | No | URL of the user's blog or website | |
| name | No | Full name for the user | |
| Yes | The email address for the user | ||
| login | Yes | The username for the user | |
| company | No | Company for the user | |
| location | No | Location for the user | |
| twitter_username | No | Twitter username for the user |
TDQS
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.
delete-repositoryD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | Repository owner | |
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| confirm | Yes | Confirmation for deletion (must be true) |
TDQS
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.
delete-userD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | Username of the user to delete |
TDQS
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.
get-contentD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | User or organization name | |
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| path | Yes | File or directory path | |
| ref | No | Branch or commit hash (default: default branch) |
TDQS
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.
get-enterprise-statsD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
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.
get-issueD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | Repository owner (user or organization) | |
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| issue_number | Yes | Issue number |
TDQS
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.
get-license-infoD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
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.
get-pull-requestD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | Repository owner (user or organization) | |
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| pull_number | Yes | Pull request number |
TDQS
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.
get-repositoryD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | User or organization name | |
| repo | Yes | Repository name |
TDQS
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.
get-userD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | Username of the user to retrieve |
TDQS
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.
list-branchesD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | User or organization name | |
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| protected_only | No | Whether to show only protected branches | |
| page | No | Page number | |
| perPage | No | Items per page |
TDQS
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.
list-issue-commentsD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| owner | Yes | Repository owner (user or organization) | |
| per_page | No | Items per page | |
| issue_number | Yes | Issue number |
TDQS
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.
list-issuesD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | Repository owner (user or organization) | |
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| state | No | Issue state filter | open |
| sort | No | Sort criteria | created |
| direction | No | Sort direction | desc |
| page | No | Page number | |
| per_page | No | Items per page |
TDQS
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.
list-pull-requestsD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | Repository owner (user or organization) | |
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| state | No | PR state filter | open |
| sort | No | Sort criteria | created |
| direction | No | Sort direction | desc |
| page | No | Page number | |
| per_page | No | Items per page |
TDQS
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.
list-repositoriesD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | User or organization name | |
| isOrg | No | Whether it's an organization (true: organization, false: user) | |
| type | No | Repository type filter | all |
| sort | No | Sort criteria | full_name |
| page | No | Page number | |
| perPage | No | Items per page |
TDQS
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.
list-user-orgsD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number for pagination | |
| per_page | No | Number of results per page (max 100) | |
| username | Yes | Username of the user whose organizations to list |
TDQS
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.
list-usersD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number for pagination | |
| filter | No | Filter users by status | |
| search | No | Search query to filter users by username or email | |
| per_page | No | Number of results per page (max 100) |
TDQS
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.
list-workflow-runsD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | Repository owner | |
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| workflow_id | No | Workflow ID or file name | |
| branch | No | Filter by branch name | |
| status | No | Filter by run status | |
| page | No | Page number | |
| perPage | No | Items per page |
TDQS
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.
list-workflowsD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | Repository owner | |
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| page | No | Page number | |
| perPage | No | Items per page |
TDQS
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.
merge-pull-requestD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | Repository owner (user or organization) | |
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| pull_number | Yes | Pull request number | |
| commit_title | No | Title for the automatic commit message | |
| commit_message | No | Extra detail to append to automatic commit message | |
| merge_method | No | Merge method to use | merge |
TDQS
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.
suspend-userD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Reason for the suspension | |
| username | Yes | Username of the user to suspend |
TDQS
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.
trigger-workflowD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | Repository owner | |
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| workflow_id | Yes | Workflow ID or file name | |
| ref | Yes | Git reference (branch, tag, SHA) | |
| inputs | No | Workflow inputs |
TDQS
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.
unsuspend-userD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | Username of the user to unsuspend |
TDQS
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.
update-repositoryD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | Repository owner | |
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| description | No | New description | |
| private | No | Change privacy setting | |
| default_branch | No | Change default branch | |
| has_issues | No | Enable/disable issues | |
| has_projects | No | Enable/disable projects | |
| has_wiki | No | Enable/disable wiki | |
| archived | No | Archive/unarchive repository |
TDQS
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.
update-userD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bio | No | Biography for the user | |
| blog | No | URL of the user's blog or website | |
| name | No | Full name for the user | |
| No | The email address for the user | ||
| company | No | Company for the user | |
| location | No | Location for the user | |
| username | Yes | Username of the user to update | |
| twitter_username | No | Twitter username for the user |
TDQS
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.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
2 tool updates
v1.0.0- Changed
get-enterprise-stats1 field changed- removed
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -false
- Changed
get-license-info1 field changed- removed
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -false
28 tool updates
- First observed
create-issue - First observed
create-pull-request - First observed
create-repository - First observed
create-user - First observed
delete-repository - First observed
delete-user - First observed
get-content - First observed
get-enterprise-stats - First observed
get-issue - First observed
get-license-info - First observed
get-pull-request - First observed
get-repository - First observed
get-user - First observed
list-branches - First observed
list-issue-comments - First observed
list-issues - First observed
list-pull-requests - First observed
list-repositories - First observed
list-user-orgs - First observed
list-users - First observed
list-workflow-runs - First observed
list-workflows - First observed
merge-pull-request - First observed
suspend-user - First observed
trigger-workflow - First observed
unsuspend-user - First observed
update-repository - First observed
update-user
TDQS
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific GitHub resources and actions. There is no overlap between tools like get-repository vs list-repositories or get-issue vs list-issues, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.
All 18 tools follow a consistent verb-noun naming pattern with hyphens (e.g., create-pull-request, list-repositories, get-content). The naming convention is uniform throughout the entire set with no deviations or mixed styles.
With 18 tools, this is slightly on the higher side but reasonable for a GitHub Enterprise server covering repositories, issues, pull requests, workflows, and enterprise features. The count feels comprehensive rather than excessive, though it borders on being heavy.
The tool set provides strong coverage for core GitHub operations including CRUD for repositories and pull requests, listing and getting issues, and workflow management. Minor gaps exist, such as no update/delete for issues or pull request reviews, but agents can work around these with the available tools.
Maintenance
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
Create, deploy, and operate MCP servers directly from your GitHub repositories.
An MCP server that gives your AI access to the source code and docs of all public github repos
A MCP server built for developers enabling Git based project management with project and personal…
The Cortex MCP server provides read-only access to real-time engineering context from the Cortex developer portal, allowing AI coding assistants to answer natural language questions about your organization's catalog (microservices, libraries, domains, teams, infrastructure), scorecards (engineering standards and best practices), initiatives (goals and deadlines), and Engineering Intelligence metrics. It includes tools for querying documentation, tracking personal entities, and accessing AI-assisted insights across the entire Cortex ecosystem.
Related MCP Servers
- -licenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceMCP Server for the GitHub API, enabling file operations, repository management, search functionality, and more.117,29690,042MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that wraps the GitHub CLI to provide comprehensive access to repository management, pull requests, issues, and workflows. It enables users to perform complex GitHub operations and interact with the GitHub API through a standardized interface.101ISC
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables managing GitHub repositories, pull requests, issues, and more through natural language in Cursor or Claude Desktop.39134MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceMCP (Model Context Protocol) server for GitHub API integration. This server provides comprehensive tools for interacting with GitHub repositories, issues, pull requests, branches, and code search through a unified interface.1514MIT
Appeared in Searches
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/ddukbg/github-enterprise-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server