Queries public GitHub repo stars, open issues, licenses, and push activity ($0.002 USDC)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repository | Yes | GitHub repository in owner/repo format |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stars | Yes | Repository star count | |
| license | No | SPDX license identifier | |
| success | Yes | Analysis status |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / repository / descriptionAdded value: +"GitHub repository in owner/repo format"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "license": {
+ "description": "SPDX license identifier",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "stars": {
+ "description": "Repository star count",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "description": "Analysis status",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success",
+ "stars"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds two valuable pieces of context beyond the annotations: the operation is limited to public repositories and carries a per-call cost of $0.002 USDC, which an agent needs to know before invoking a paid 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It packs purpose, scope, and cost into minimal text, with nothing that could be removed without losing information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value details are unnecessary in the description, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies purpose, public-repo scope, and cost, which is nearly complete for a one-parameter read tool; only explicit usage guidance is missing.
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%; the single 'repository' parameter is fully documented as 'owner/repo format'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema carries the full burden.
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?
States a specific verb ('Queries') plus resource ('public GitHub repo stars, open issues, licenses, and push activity'), making the tool's output scope immediately identifiable. No sibling tool covers GitHub repository health, so the distinction is trivially clear without needing to name an alternative.
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 word 'public' implies the tool only applies to public repositories, which is useful scoping guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use instruction and no alternatives referenced. Usage is only implied by the resource description.
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.