MCP100 verdict
Work with repositories, issues, pull requests, and GitHub workflows.
MCP100 Assessment
Editorial verdict
Work with repositories, issues, pull requests, and GitHub workflows.
Reviewed 2026-07-24 · Next review 2026-10-24
Task Fit
Mapped
Developer workflows
Trust
Reviewed
A dated editorial review is published on the MCP detail page.
Maintenance
Activity observed
A dated repository or package update is available; editorial maintenance review is still pending.
Popularity
Signals available
Visible usage signals are shown for discovery only, not as proof of safety.
Best for
- Repository, issue, pull-request, and code context
- Teams that can issue a narrowly scoped PAT or use the hosted OAuth flow
- Read-only GitHub investigation using restricted toolsets
Not ideal for
- Git hosting outside GitHub
- Users unable to run Docker for the documented local configuration
- Workflows that need only a small amount of public repository context
Avoid if
- You cannot restrict the token to the necessary repositories and scopes
- The agent must not receive private repository, issue, pull-request, or user data
- Your organization has not approved the OAuth app or PAT policy
Trade-offs
- The default local toolsets include repositories, issues, pull requests, users, and context; limiting toolsets reduces capability and context size.
- Local Docker keeps the MCP process local but still sends authorized requests to GitHub APIs.
- PAT setup is explicit and portable, while hosted OAuth is easier but relies on GitHub's remote MCP service.
Evidence scope
Evidence
Popularity
32.2k MCP repository stars
No MCP-specific package metric is stored
Stars observed 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z · Downloads observation date unavailable
Exact implementation repository metric.
Exact OCI install artifact is documented; package download evidence is not applicable.
Maintenance
Publisher activity observed 2026-08-14T16:08:52Z
Current source snapshot
Trust review
Source relationship: First-party MCP
Reviewed 2026-07-24 · Next review 2026-10-24