score_candidateFor someone in a role, use score_role_person instead (it also judges them against the role's criteria). Lightweight version of analyze_github_user that never writes to the database. Uses a saved result if one is fresh; otherwise scrapes and scores without saving.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| refresh | No | Ignore a saved result and re-score | |
| username | Yes | GitHub username to score |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a fresh saved result is reused, otherwise it scrapes live, and the refresh flag overrides the cache. It stops short of noting latency or rate-limit implications of scraping.
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?
Three tight sentences with no filler. Structure is slightly inverted — the first sentence is about the sibling tool rather than front-loading what this tool does, forcing the reader to reach sentence two for the core 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 2-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers persistence, caching and routing. With no output schema, a hint about what a 'score' actually contains would close the remaining gap.
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 both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces refresh semantics by explaining the cache-freshness logic that gives the flag meaning, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.
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 conveys a specific verb+resource (scrape and score a GitHub developer) and pins down the key differentiator: it never writes to the database, unlike analyze_github_user. It also explicitly separates itself from score_role_person, though the opening sentence leads with the sibling rather than stating this tool's own purpose first.
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?
Explicit routing: 'For someone in a role, use score_role_person instead' names the alternative and the condition that selects it. It also implicitly defines when to pick this over analyze_github_user — when you want a lightweight, non-persisting score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.