Connect a GitHub repo to Hokmah. Builds TransitionGraph + IdeaGraph + WorldModel from commit history. FREE.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| branch | No | main | |
| repo_url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies data, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The mention of 'FREE' is superficial.
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 short with two front-loaded sentences. The first sentence conveys the main purpose; the second adds output specifics and a note. Some redundancy could be trimmed.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain return values, error handling, or prerequisites. For a tool building multiple graphs, more context on the process and results is needed.
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 0%, and the description only mentions 'repo_url' implicitly via 'Connect a GitHub repo.' The 'branch' parameter with a default is not explained, leaving the agent to infer meaning.
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 clearly states the action 'Connect a GitHub repo to Hokmah' and specifies the output 'Builds TransitionGraph + IdeaGraph + WorldModel from commit history,' distinguishing it from siblings like 'hokmah_connect_mcp'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools 'hokmah_connect_mcp' and others are not referenced, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: analyzing impact, connecting external MCP, connecting project, generating code, and generating tests. No two tools overlap in function, and descriptions clarify the differences.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'hokmah_verb_noun' with snake_case. Verbs are descriptive and imperative, and the prefix is uniform, making the naming predictable.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped. It covers analysis, connections, and generation without being bloated or insufficient for its apparent purpose.
The tool set covers core workflows: analysis, project setup, code and test generation. Missing features like graph querying or connection management are minor gaps, but the surface is largely complete for the domain.