Identify and retrieve only explicitly evidenced blockers from GitHub Projects v2 statuses, fields, or reasons, without inferring them from ordinary workflow state.
Return only explicitly evidenced blockers from Blocked status/fields/reasons; does not infer blockers from ordinary workflow state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| first | No | ||
| owner | Yes | ||
| number | Yes | ||
| includeArchived | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable semantics: only explicitly evidenced blockers are returned, not inferred ones – an agent needs to know this to trust or distrust the result set.
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 tight sentence with the return semantics front-loaded and no filler. Slightly dense with slash-delimited qualifiers ('status/fields/reasons') but every clause 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 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves too much unsaid: which parameters are mandatory, what pagination does, and whether archived items are included. The one thing it does define (blocker evidence criteria) is the most important, but the rest 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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description would need to carry the full burden, and it carries none. It says nothing about required owner/number, the 'first' pagination cap (default 100, max 100), or what includeArchived changes in the blocker set.
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 states a specific verb+resource ('Return ... blockers') and precisely bounds the resource by defining what counts as a blocker ('explicitly evidenced ... from Blocked status/fields/reasons'). It differentiates itself implicitly from the add/remove blocked_by siblings and from general state-analysis tools, though it never names a sibling.
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 clause 'does not infer blockers from ordinary workflow state' gives real scoping guidance about when this tool is and isn't the right choice, which is more than pure implication. However, it offers no prerequisites (owner/number required), no alternatives named, and no statement of the situation that should trigger calling it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.