Excessive context usage for tools

[rcdailey]

I went from 34k tokens to 80k tokens just by adding the github mcp to Claude Code. Even though I am specifying an explicit toolset representing only things I'd use on a day to day basis as a developer, there are over 66 tools!

My MCP registration in Claude Code:

"github": {
  "type": "http",
  "url": "https://api.githubcopilot.com/mcp",
  "headers": {
    "Authorization": "Bearer SNIP",
    "X-MCP-Toolsets": "context,orgs,repos,issues,pull_requests,actions,discussions,actions"
  }
}

Before I added Github MCP:

And after:

I really want to use this MCP server because claude is so much more efficient with it than the gh CLI. However, being able to use nearly only half of Claude 4.5's available context for a single MCP tool is just too much for me.

I was really hoping this was optimized but it doesn't seem so. I hope the team can address the volume of tools soon. I think some consolidation is desperately needed.

[tommaso-moro]

Hi @rcdailey thank you for reporting this. We share your concern, which is why this has been a top priority for us.

In our latest releases, we have significantly consolidated our tools. The latest consolidation was released yesterday as part of v0.20: https://github.com/github/github-mcp-server/releases/tag/v0.20.0 where issue tools have been consolidated.

This should further reduce the context usage on your end. We will keep working hard on this, so stay tuned for updates!

Regarding this:

I really want to use this MCP server because claude is so much more efficient with it than the gh CLI.

Could you share more details on how your experience has been using the MCP vs the gh CLI, and in what ways you have been finding the MCP to be superior? This kind of feedback really helps us improve the MCP server!

[rcdailey]

When you consolidate tools, should I expect the total tool count to go down with those releases, or do they remain for some compatibility/transition period?

Could you share more details on how your experience has been using the MCP vs the gh CLI, and in what ways you have been finding the MCP to be superior? This kind of feedback really helps us improve the MCP server!

For starters:

• Claude doesn't really know how to use the gh CLI correctly unless you keep a cheat sheet in its context (it frequently uses the tool wrong such as passing in invalid options)
• MCP tooling is actively in context; basically like claude already having the latest CLI reference in memory.
• The MCP has first-class support for things that the CLI doesn't, such as tools to operate on discussions, and performing operations on draft pull request reviews.

[tommaso-moro]

When you consolidate tools, should I expect the total tool count to go down with those releases, or do they remain for some compatibility/transition period?

You can expect the total tool count to go down. For example in v0.20.0:

• issue_read consolidates 4 tools (get_issue, get_issue_comments, list_labels, list_sub_issues)
• issue_write consolidates 2 tools (create_issue, update_issue)
• sub_issue_write consolidates 3 tools (add_sub_issue, remove_sub_issue and reprioritize_sub_issue)

So in that release alone we consolidated 9 tools into 3, and we had a similar approach in releases 0.19.0, 0.18.0, 0.17.0.

Thank you so much for the feedback on your experience of gh CLI vs MCP!