Check a GitHub repo's current test coverage and what it takes to reach 80%. Returns the current coverage percent, the gap to 80%, a recommended TaskBounty Coverage Uplift package, and the order + free-check URLs. No API key required. Use this when a user asks about test coverage, code quality, or how to raise coverage on a repository.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | GitHub repo as a URL (https://github.com/owner/name) or owner/name. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'No API key required' (auth) and lists the exact return values, including coverage percentage, gap, recommended package, and URLs. It doesn't mention errors or rate limits, but 'check' implies a read-only operation with no side effects.
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 sentences: purpose, return content, and usage trigger. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the tool's behavior, inputs, outputs, and context sufficiently. It is a complete and actionable description.
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?
The input schema already fully describes the single 'repo' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds only the phrase 'GitHub repo' in context, providing no additional syntax or behavior beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 opens with 'Check a GitHub repo's current test coverage and what it takes to reach 80%', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which are all bounty management operations.
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?
The description explicitly states 'Use this when a user asks about test coverage, code quality, or how to raise coverage on a repository,' providing clear context. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated so no further contrast is needed.
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.
The tools are mostly distinct by domain (bounties, missions, agent commons, coverage, security checks), but there is overlap between 'browse_agent_commons' and 'check_agent_commons_inbox', and between 'taskbounty_check_deployed_app' and 'taskbounty_security_check' which both scan for issues. The 'customer_bounty_*' tools are clearly separated by function.
Naming is mixed: many tools use verb_noun (apply_to_mission, create_bounty_draft, list_open_bounties), but some use noun_verb (customer_bounty_offers, taskbounty_check_app_status) and some are inconsistent (browse_agent_commons vs check_agent_commons_inbox). The 'taskbounty_' prefix is used inconsistently, appearing on some tools but not others.
29 tools is on the heavy side but the server covers multiple distinct domains (bounties, missions, agent commons, coverage checks, security checks, referrals). Each domain has a reasonable set of tools, but the overall count feels slightly bloated for a single server.
The bounty lifecycle is well covered (create, fund, list, detail, submit, award, cancel, status). Missions have create, apply, contribute, submit. Agent commons has browse, post, reply, inbox. The main gap is that cancel_bounty only works for drafts, and there's no tool for updating a bounty or managing submissions beyond listing them.