// Search MCP PRs, issues, and discussions across the modelcontextprotocol GitHub org
| name | search-mcp-github |
| description | Search MCP PRs, issues, and discussions across the modelcontextprotocol GitHub org |
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| user_invocable | true |
| arguments | [{"name":"topic","description":"The topic or keyword to search for","required":true}] |
mcp-docs MCP server → SearchModelContextProtocol tool): Authoritative for current spec content. Prefer this first for specification details, API references, and protocol concepts.gh search prs / gh search issues in modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol (searches open and closed by default)For historical decisions, prioritize merged PRs and closed issues over open items.
There is no gh search discussions command. Use the GraphQL API:
# Spec-repo discussions
gh api graphql -f query="query { search(query: \"repo:modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol <topic>\", type: DISCUSSION, first: 20) { nodes { ... on Discussion { title url body author { login } authorAssociation category { name } answer { author { login } authorAssociation body } } } } }"
# Org-wide discussions
gh api graphql -f query="query { search(query: \"org:modelcontextprotocol <topic>\", type: DISCUSSION, first: 20) { nodes { ... on Discussion { title url body author { login } authorAssociation category { name } answer { author { login } authorAssociation body } } } } }"
GitHub search does not split camelCase tokens. ToolAnnotations and Tool Annotations return almost entirely different results — search both.
ToolAnnotations, inputSchema): matches identifiers in code and schemaTool Annotations, input schema): matches natural-language discussion textSkip kebab-case variants (tool-annotations) — GitHub tokenizes on hyphens, so they behave like the space-separated form but tend to return noisier results.
When to deep dive: a search result PR looks highly relevant to the topic, and you need to understand why a change was made, not just what changed
During a deep dive, look through:
repos/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol/issues/{pr_number}/comments)repos/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol/pulls/{pr_number}/comments)repos/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol/pulls/{pr_number}/reviews)Each comment returned by these endpoints includes an author_association field — use it to identify maintainers (see Notable maintainer quotes).
- [#123](url) - PR Title (**Merged/Closed/Open** <date>)
Brief summary of PR
- [#456](url) - Issue Title (**Open/Closed** <date>)
Brief summary of issue
- [#789](url) - Discussion Title (<date>)
Brief summary of discussion content
Identifying maintainers: The GitHub API includes an author_association field (REST) or authorAssociation (GraphQL) on every comment. Treat users with association MEMBER or OWNER as maintainers.
When maintainers make comments that reveal design intent, set direction, or explain rationale, quote them directly with attribution and a footnote:
"These would require a SEP. I think the general question here is about the taxonomy of hints." [^1] — @dsp-ant
Look for quotes that:
Summarize the most important findings and any decisions or consensus reached.
Collect all sources as footnotes at the end. Every quote and claim presented in the output should have a corresponding footnote. For example:
[^1]: [#616 inline review comment by @dsp-ant](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol/pull/616#discussion_r...)
[^2]: [#185 ToolAnnotations](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol/pull/185)
[^3]: [Spec: Tool Annotations (2025-11-25)](https://modelcontextprotocol.io/specification/2025-11-25/server/tools)
SearchModelContextProtocol tool (if available) to search for current specification details and conceptsgh CLI tool if available)