The GitHub Action Trigger MCP Server is a TypeScript-based server that allows you to interact with GitHub repositories and Actions. With this server, you can:
Fetch GitHub Actions: Retrieve available workflows from a repository, including their IDs, names, paths, states, and URLs.
Inspect Actions: Get detailed information about specific GitHub Actions, including inputs, requirements, and metadata.
Trigger Workflows: Execute GitHub workflow dispatch events with custom input parameters.
Fetch Releases: Retrieve information about the latest two releases from a repository, including details, assets, and author information.
Token Configuration: Use GitHub personal access tokens for accessing private repositories or increasing API rate limits.
Claude Desktop Integration: Configure and use within Claude Desktop for seamless GitHub Actions management.
Provides tools for interacting with GitHub repositories, fetching the latest releases, and accessing repository information.
Enables fetching available GitHub Actions workflows from repositories, getting detailed information about specific actions, and triggering workflow dispatch events with custom inputs.
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 Action Trigger MCP Server trigger the deploy workflow on the main branch for my-app 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.
A Model Context Protocol server for GitHub Actions integration.
This is a TypeScript-based MCP server designed for GitHub Actions integration. It provides the following features:
Tool for fetching available GitHub Actions from a repository
Tool for getting detailed information about a specific GitHub Action
Tool for triggering GitHub workflow dispatch events
Tool for fetching the latest releases from a GitHub repository
Tool for enabling auto-merge on pull requests
Related MCP server: GitHub MCP Server
get_github_actions - Get available GitHub Actions for a repository
Required parameters: owner (repository owner, username or organization) and repo (repository name)
Optional parameters: token (GitHub personal access token, for accessing private repositories or increasing API rate limits)
Returns JSON data with workflow ID, name, path, state, URL, and content
get_github_action - Get detailed information about a specific GitHub Action, including inputs and their requirements
Required parameters: owner (Action owner, username or organization) and repo (repository name of the action)
Optional parameters:
path: Path to the action definition file (default: 'action.yml')
ref: Git reference (branch, tag, or commit SHA, default: 'main')
token: GitHub personal access token (optional)
Returns detailed information about the Action, including name, description, author, inputs (and whether they're required), etc.
trigger_github_action - Trigger a GitHub workflow and pass relevant parameters
Required parameters:
owner: Repository owner (username or organization)
repo: Repository name
workflow_id: The ID or filename of the workflow to trigger
Optional parameters:
ref: The git reference to trigger the workflow on (default: 'main')
inputs: Inputs to pass to the workflow (must match the workflow's defined inputs)
token: GitHub personal access token (must have the workflow scope)
Returns workflow run information, including status, URL, etc.
get_github_release - Get the latest 2 releases from a GitHub repository
Required parameters: owner (repository owner, username or organization) and repo (repository name)
Optional parameters: token (GitHub personal access token, optional)
Returns information about the latest 2 releases
enable_pull_request_automerge - Enable auto-merge for a specific pull request
Required parameters:
owner: Repository owner (username or organization)
repo: Repository name
pull_number: The pull request number
Optional parameters:
merge_method: The merge method to use (MERGE, SQUASH, or REBASE, default: MERGE)
token: GitHub personal access token (optional)
Returns success status and pull request information
Note: This will automatically merge the PR when all required checks pass and approvals are met
The simplest way to install and use is via the npx command in your Claude Desktop configuration file without manual local installation:
{
"mcpServers": {
"github-action-trigger-mcp": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@nextdrive/github-action-trigger-mcp"
],
"env": {
"GITHUB_PERSONAL_ACCESS_TOKEN": "your_github_token_here"
}
}
}
}Benefits of this method:
No local package installation required
Automatically uses the latest version
Set up once and ready to use
Built-in GitHub token configuration
If you prefer to install manually, follow these steps:
Install the package:
npm install -g @nextdrive/github-action-trigger-mcpUse in Claude Desktop configuration:
On MacOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
On Windows: %APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"github-action-trigger-mcp": {
"command": "@nextdrive/github-action-trigger-mcp",
"env": {
"GITHUB_PERSONAL_ACCESS_TOKEN": "your_github_token_here"
}
}
}
}To access the GitHub API, especially for private repositories or workflow triggers, you need to configure a GitHub personal access token. There are several ways to do this:
Set the token directly in the Claude Desktop configuration file via the env field:
"env": {
"GITHUB_PERSONAL_ACCESS_TOKEN": "your_github_token_here"
}Set the GITHUB_TOKEN environment variable:
# On Linux/MacOS
export GITHUB_TOKEN=your_github_token
# On Windows
set GITHUB_TOKEN=your_github_tokenEdit the configuration file:
~/.nextdrive-github-action-trigger-mcp/config.jsonSet your GitHub token:
{
"githubToken": "your_github_token"
}A template for this configuration file is automatically created the first time the server starts.
Install dependencies:
npm installBuild the server:
npm run buildFor automatic rebuilding during development:
npm run watchUse MCP Inspector for debugging:
npm run inspectorThe Inspector will provide a URL to access the debugging tools in your browser.
If you want to publish this package to npm, follow these steps:
Make sure you're logged in to npm and have permissions to publish to the @nextdrive organization:
npm loginBuild the project:
npm run buildPublish to npm (organization-scoped packages are private by default, use --access public to make it public):
npm publish --access publicAfter publishing, anyone can run this tool using the npx @nextdrive/github-action-trigger-mcp command or use it in their Claude Desktop configuration.
Use the get_github_actions tool to get GitHub Actions for a repository:
{
"owner": "username-or-org",
"repo": "repository-name"
}If a default token is configured, it will be used automatically when accessing private repositories.
Example response:
[
{
"id": 12345678,
"name": "CI",
"path": ".github/workflows/ci.yml",
"state": "active",
"url": "https://github.com/owner/repo/actions/workflows/ci.yml",
"content": "name: CI\n\non:\n push:\n branches: [ main ]\n pull_request:\n branches: [ main ]\n\njobs:\n build:\n runs-on: ubuntu-latest\n steps:\n - uses: actions/checkout@v2\n - name: Setup Node.js\n uses: actions/setup-node@v2\n with:\n node-version: 16.x\n - name: Install dependencies\n run: npm ci\n - name: Build\n run: npm run build\n - name: Test\n run: npm test\n"
}
]Use the get_github_action tool to get detailed information about a specific Action:
{
"owner": "actions",
"repo": "checkout",
"ref": "v4"
}Example response:
{
"name": "Checkout",
"description": "Check out a Git repository at a particular version",
"author": "GitHub",
"inputs": [
{
"name": "repository",
"description": "Repository name with owner. For example, actions/checkout",
"default": "",
"required": false
},
{
"name": "ref",
"description": "The branch, tag or SHA to checkout.",
"default": "",
"required": false
}
],
"runs": {
"using": "node20",
"main": "dist/index.js"
}
}Use the trigger_github_action tool to trigger a GitHub workflow:
{
"owner": "username-or-org",
"repo": "repository-name",
"workflow_id": "ci.yml",
"inputs": {
"deploy_environment": "production",
"debug_enabled": "true"
}
}Example response:
{
"success": true,
"message": "Workflow dispatch event triggered successfully",
"run": {
"id": 12345678,
"url": "https://github.com/owner/repo/actions/runs/12345678",
"status": "queued",
"conclusion": null,
"created_at": "2025-03-19T06:45:12Z",
"triggered_by": "API"
}
}Note: Triggering workflows requires:
The workflow must be configured to support the workflow_dispatch event
The GitHub token must have the workflow scope permission
Input parameters passed must match those defined in the workflow
Use the get_github_release tool to get the latest 2 releases from a repository:
{
"owner": "username-or-org",
"repo": "repository-name"
}Example response:
{
"count": 2,
"releases": [
{
"id": 12345678,
"name": "v1.0.0",
"tag_name": "v1.0.0",
"published_at": "2025-03-15T10:00:00Z",
"draft": false,
"prerelease": false,
"html_url": "https://github.com/owner/repo/releases/tag/v1.0.0",
"body": "Release notes for version 1.0.0",
"assets": [
{
"name": "app-v1.0.0.zip",
"size": 1234567,
"download_count": 42,
"browser_download_url": "https://github.com/owner/repo/releases/download/v1.0.0/app-v1.0.0.zip",
"created_at": "2025-03-15T10:05:00Z",
"updated_at": "2025-03-15T10:05:00Z"
}
],
"author": {
"login": "username",
"html_url": "https://github.com/username"
}
},
{
"id": 87654321,
"name": "v0.9.0",
"tag_name": "v0.9.0",
"published_at": "2025-03-01T10:00:00Z",
"draft": false,
"prerelease": true,
"html_url": "https://github.com/owner/repo/releases/tag/v0.9.0",
"body": "Pre-release notes for version 0.9.0",
"assets": [],
"author": {
"login": "username",
"html_url": "https://github.com/username"
}
}
]
}Use the enable_pull_request_automerge tool to enable auto-merge for a specific pull request:
{
"owner": "username-or-org",
"repo": "repository-name",
"pull_number": 123,
"merge_method": "SQUASH"
}Example response:
{
"success": true,
"message": "Auto-merge enabled successfully",
"pullRequest": {
"id": "PR_kwDOABCD123_456",
"title": "Add new feature",
"number": 123,
"autoMergeEnabled": true,
"enabledAt": "2025-08-21T03:00:00Z",
"mergeMethod": "SQUASH"
}
}Note: Enabling auto-merge requires:
The repository must have auto-merge enabled in settings
The GitHub token must have write permissions to the repository
The pull request must be open and not already have auto-merge enabled
Once enabled, the PR will automatically merge when all required status checks pass and approvals are met
Enable auto-merge for a specific pull request. This will automatically merge the PR when all required checks pass.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | Owner of the repository (username or organization) | |
| repo | Yes | Name of the repository | |
| pull_number | Yes | The pull request number | |
| merge_method | No | The merge method to use when auto-merging (MERGE, SQUASH, or REBASE) | |
| token | No | GitHub personal access token (optional) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool enables auto-merge and describes the triggering condition, it lacks critical information about permissions needed, whether this is reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to existing auto-merge settings. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that directly communicate the core functionality. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the main purpose.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address permissions, error handling, return values, or important behavioral details like whether this overrides existing settings or requires specific repository configurations. The context signals show this is a non-trivial operation (5 parameters, 3 required), warranting more comprehensive documentation.
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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but it does provide context about the overall purpose that helps understand parameter usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 specific action ('Enable auto-merge') and the target resource ('for a specific pull request'), with additional detail about the automatic merging behavior when checks pass. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which are all read operations) by being a write/mutation tool.
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, prerequisites, or constraints. It mentions the condition 'when all required checks pass' but doesn't specify what happens if checks fail or if there are other requirements like permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get detailed information about a specific GitHub Action, including inputs and their requirements
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | Owner of the action (username or organization) | |
| repo | Yes | Repository name of the action | |
| path | No | Path to the action.yml or action.yaml file (usually just 'action.yml') | |
| ref | No | Git reference (branch, tag, or commit SHA, default: main) | |
| token | No | GitHub personal access token (optional) |
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. It describes what information is returned but lacks details on permissions required (e.g., public vs. private repos), rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and includes a useful detail about inputs and requirements. Every part of the sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a read-only tool. It clarifies the scope (detailed info about a specific action) but doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs or response structure. For a tool with 5 parameters and no structured safety hints, it should provide more context about usage constraints.
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 documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify 'path' defaults or 'token' usage scenarios). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific GitHub Action, including inputs and their requirements.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('GitHub Action') with additional detail about what information is retrieved. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_github_actions' (plural vs. singular).
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_github_actions' (which likely lists multiple actions) or 'trigger_github_action' (which executes an action). There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get available GitHub Actions for a repository
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | Owner of the repository (username or organization) | |
| repo | Yes | Name of the repository | |
| token | No | GitHub personal access token (optional) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required (though 'token' is optional in schema), rate limits, pagination, or what 'available' means (e.g., active vs. all actions). This leaves significant gaps for safe invocation.
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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'available GitHub Actions' entails (e.g., list format, metadata included), authentication needs despite an optional token, or error handling. Given the complexity of GitHub APIs and sibling tools, more context is needed for reliable use.
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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool fetches actions for a repository, which aligns with the schema but doesn't enhance parameter understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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 action ('Get') and resource ('GitHub Actions for a repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_github_action' (singular) or 'get_github_release', leaving some ambiguity about scope.
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or relationships with sibling tools like 'get_github_action' (singular) or 'trigger_github_action', leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the latest 2 releases from a GitHub repository
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | Owner of the repository (username or organization) | |
| repo | Yes | Name of the repository | |
| token | No | GitHub personal access token (optional) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical details like whether it requires authentication (though the token parameter is optional in the schema), rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's scope, making it easy to understand at a glance.
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 complexity of interacting with GitHub APIs, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like authentication needs, rate limiting, error responses, or the structure of the release data returned, which are essential for effective tool usage in a real-world context.
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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all parameters (owner, repo, token). The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'latest 2 releases' constraint or token usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation 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 action ('Get') and resource ('latest 2 releases from a GitHub repository'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_github_action' or 'get_github_actions', which focus on GitHub Actions rather than releases, so it misses full sibling distinction.
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 when to choose it over other GitHub-related tools or how it fits into broader workflows. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Trigger a GitHub workflow dispatch event with custom inputs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | Owner of the repository (username or organization) | |
| repo | Yes | Name of the repository | |
| workflow_id | Yes | The ID or filename of the workflow to trigger | |
| ref | No | The git reference to trigger the workflow on (default: main) | |
| inputs | No | Inputs to pass to the workflow (must match the workflow's defined inputs) | |
| token | No | GitHub personal access token (must have workflow scope) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'trigger' and 'custom inputs,' which implies a write operation, but lacks details on permissions required (beyond the token parameter), rate limits, whether the action is idempotent, what happens on failure, or the expected response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Trigger a GitHub workflow dispatch event') and adds necessary context ('with custom inputs'). There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the tool's function without redundancy.
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 complexity of triggering GitHub actions (a write operation with multiple parameters and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or response structure, which are critical for an agent to use the tool effectively. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall completeness is poor due to missing operational context.
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 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond implying that 'custom inputs' map to the 'inputs' parameter, but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints not covered in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 specific action ('trigger') and resource ('GitHub workflow dispatch event') with additional context ('with custom inputs'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_github_action' or 'enable_pull_request_automerge' by focusing on initiating workflows rather than retrieving information or modifying settings.
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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implied for triggering workflows, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a GitHub token with specific scopes), when not to use it (e.g., for manual triggers vs. automated ones), or how it differs from other workflow-related tools in the ecosystem.
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.
v1.0.0enable_pull_request_automergeget_github_actionget_github_actionsget_github_releasetrigger_github_actionMost tools have distinct purposes: enabling auto-merge, getting action details, listing available actions, fetching releases, and triggering actions. However, 'get_github_action' and 'get_github_actions' could be slightly confusing as they both retrieve action information but differ in scope (single vs. multiple). The descriptions clarify this, but the names are similar enough to cause potential misselection.
The naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get', 'enable', and 'trigger' as verbs, all using snake_case. The only minor deviation is 'enable_pull_request_automerge' which includes a compound noun, but it still fits the overall style. This consistency makes the tools predictable and easy to understand.
With 5 tools, the count is well-scoped for a GitHub Action Trigger server, covering key operations like triggering actions, managing auto-merge, and retrieving related information. It's slightly lean but reasonable, as it focuses on core functionality without unnecessary bloat, though a few more tools might enhance coverage.
The toolset covers triggering actions and getting action/release info, but has notable gaps. For example, there's no way to disable auto-merge, manage action runs (e.g., cancel or list workflows), or handle other GitHub Actions lifecycle aspects like secrets or environments. This limits agents to basic triggering and info retrieval, with missing operations that could cause workarounds or failures.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Model Context Protocol server for the Apideck Unified API. Connect any MCP-compatible agent framework to 100+ accounting systems, HRIS platforms, file storage providers, and more through one integration. More information https://www.apideck.com/mcp-server
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
The Mercado Pago MCP Server implements the Model Context Protocol to provide AI agents and LLMs with access to Mercado Pago's APIs and tools within compatible development environments. It acts as an intermediary that translates Mercado Pago resources into executable functions (tools) that AI applications can invoke to perform actions and automate flows. The server simplifies integration, enables using documentation to implement or improve code, and optimizes operations through natural language interactions without manual implementations.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/nextDriveIoE/github-action-trigger-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
