You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Analysis of 9 GitHub MCP tools across 9 toolsets on 2026-04-15. Total context cost: 47,935 tokens. Average usefulness rating: 3.11/5. Two toolsets (discussions, pull_requests) scored excellent (5/5); two (code_security, search) scored poor (≤2/5) due to massive response bloat.
Full Structural Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Metric
Value
Tools Analyzed
9
Total Tokens (Today)
47,935
Average Usefulness Rating
3.11/5
Best Rated Tools
list_discussions & list_pull_requests: 5/5
Worst Rated Tool
get_me (403 error) & search_code: 1–2/5
Most Context-Heavy
list_code_scanning_alerts: ~35,800 tokens
Most Context-Efficient
list_discussions: ~105 tokens
Usefulness Ratings for Agentic Work
Tool
Toolset
Rating
Assessment
list_discussions
discussions
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Compact, paginated, category-filterable — ideal for agents
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Analysis of 9 GitHub MCP tools across 9 toolsets on 2026-04-15. Total context cost: 47,935 tokens. Average usefulness rating: 3.11/5. Two toolsets (
discussions,pull_requests) scored excellent (5/5); two (code_security,search) scored poor (≤2/5) due to massive response bloat.Full Structural Analysis Report
Executive Summary
list_discussions&list_pull_requests: 5/5get_me(403 error) &search_code: 1–2/5list_code_scanning_alerts: ~35,800 tokenslist_discussions: ~105 tokensUsefulness Ratings for Agentic Work
list_discussionslist_pull_requestslist_issuesget_file_contentslist_workflowsper_page=1; returns 30 workflows; URL fields are noisylist_labellist_code_scanning_alertssearch_codeget_meSchema Analysis
get_meget_file_contentslist_issueslist_pull_requestslist_workflowslist_code_scanning_alertslist_discussionslist_labelsearch_codeResponse Size Analysis
Tool-by-Tool Analysis
get_meget_file_contentslist_issueslist_pull_requestslist_workflowslist_code_scanning_alertslist_discussionslist_labelsearch_code30-Day Trend Summary
Recommendations
High-value tools (rating 4–5) — prefer these:
list_discussions— most efficient for discoverylist_pull_requests— rich PR metadata in compact formlist_issues— good but set lowperPageTools needing improvement:
list_code_scanning_alerts— must enforce pagination; response size is unacceptablesearch_code— strip redundant URL templates from embedded repo sub-objectlist_workflows— honorper_pageparameterlist_label— add proper pagination supportContext-efficient tools (low tokens, high rating):
list_discussions(105 tokens, rating 5)list_pull_requests(310 tokens, rating 5)Context-heavy tools to use sparingly:
list_code_scanning_alerts— use with extremeperPagelimitslist_workflows— filter by specific workflow name when possibleget_file_contents— only on small, known filesVisualizations
Response Size by Toolset
Usefulness Ratings
Token Usage by Tool (2026-04-15)
Size vs Usefulness
References:
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions