Use when the user names a GitHub login or selects one DevGlobe search result and needs its public profile and contribution evidence. No authentication is required. Example: {"login":"sajeetharan"}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| login | Yes | GitHub login |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile | Yes | ||
| methodologyDisclaimer | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / profile / properties / matchAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "disclaimer": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "label": {
+ "enum": [
+ "Strong match",
+ "Good match",
+ "Related match"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "method": {
+ "enum": [
+ "text",
+ "semantic",
+ "hybrid"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "reasons": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 3,
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "score": {
+ "maximum": 100,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "signals": {
+ "items": {
+ "enum": [
+ "text",
+ "semantic"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "score",
+ "label",
+ "reasons",
+ "signals",
+ "method",
+ "disclaimer"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds concrete output details (public profile and contribution evidence), enhancing transparency without contradicting the annotations.
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 succinct and front-loaded, stating the trigger condition immediately. It avoids fluff and conveys all necessary information in two sentences.
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 lookup tool, the description covers the key aspects: when to use, what it returns, and the required parameter. No output schema is provided, but the description's mention of 'public profile and contribution evidence' sufficiently sets expectations.
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 parameter 'login' is described as 'GitHub login' in both the schema and the description. The example value 'sajeetharan' provides practical context, going slightly beyond the schema coverage alone.
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 tool's purpose: retrieving a public GitHub profile and contribution evidence for a given login. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_developers and find_similar_developers by focusing on a single, specific profile lookup.
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 specifies when to use the tool: when the user names a GitHub login or selects a DevGlobe search result. It also notes that no authentication is required, which is helpful for agent decision-making.
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.