Use after request_introduction to check a request created by the same authenticated agent. An accepted request returns only the public GitHub contact route.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| developerLogin | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it only works for the authenticated agent's own requests, and an accepted request returns only the public GitHub contact route. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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?
Two concise sentences, each earning its place: the first gives the triggering workflow and scope, the second clarifies the key return behavior. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.
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?
The description provides the essential workflow and one important output detail, and annotations cover side-effect safety. However, there is no output schema and the description does not cover non-accepted statuses, pending/rejected behavior, or where the id comes from. For a status-checking tool, this leaves meaningful ambiguity about the full range of possible responses.
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%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining parameters, but neither 'id' nor 'developerLogin' is described. Parameter names provide some hint, but 'id' is generic and it is not stated that this is the introduction request ID returned by request_introduction. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema-level documentation.
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 ('check') and resource ('introduction request'), and ties it to the sibling 'request_introduction' workflow. The description clearly indicates this tool is for checking status rather than creating or searching, which distinguishes it from all siblings.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use after request_introduction', giving a clear when-to-use trigger. It also scopes usage to requests created by the same authenticated agent, which is an important eligibility condition. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list and workflow context make the intended usage clear.
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 discovery-oriented tools (search_developers, find_similar_developers, match_developers_to_repository, get_trending_developers) all return developers, but each is anchored to a distinct input—query, login, repository, or recency—so an agent can tell them apart. The remaining tools (profile, introduction status, contribution preview, request introduction) are clearly separated by action.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: search, find, get, match, preview, request. The noun clearly indicates the resource or action target, with no mixed casing or vague verbs.
Eight tools is a well-scoped surface for developer discovery and introduction. Each tool serves a distinct part of the workflow, and the count feels neither bloated nor thin.
The core workflow is covered: discovery, profile lookup, contribution preview, introduction request, and status check. A cancel or list introductions capability would round out the introduction lifecycle, but the essential agent journeys have no dead ends.
