Compute the current health report for a public repo: overall score (0-100), letter grade, per-category breakdown (security/testing/complexity/dependencies/documentation/activity), and a list of insights to fix next. Backed by computeHealthScore in src/lib/intelligence.ts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | Repo name | |
| owner | Yes | Repo owner — username or organisation slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / owner / descriptionPrevious value: -"Repo owner username"New value: +"Repo owner — username or organisation slug"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by specifying the output composition, the 0-100 score range, the categories covered, and that the report reflects current state. Minor gaps like error behavior remain, but they are not critical for a read-only computation tool.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates purpose and output shape efficiently. The implementation note 'Backed by computeHealthScore in src/lib/intelligence.ts' is slightly extra but not harmful; it does not prevent the description from being concise.
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 simple two-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it lists all key output dimensions an agent needs to judge the result. It omits exact handling of missing repos or private repos, but those are edge cases and the overall context is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (owner, repo) already have descriptive names and explanations. The description adds only the 'public repo' framing and does not materially clarify parameter value formats or constraints beyond what the schema provides.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Compute the current health report for a public repo') and enumerates the concrete deliverable: score, grade, category breakdown, and insights. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling analysis tools like security_scan or explain_repo.
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?
It gives clear context: this tool is for computing a current health report on a public repo. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list when-not-to-use cases, but no direct sibling tool competes with this exact responsibility, so the guidance is adequate.
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.