Retrieve GitHub Project items marked In Review to build a review queue for triage and approvals. Filter by owner, project number, item count, and archived state.
Return items whose Project Status is explicitly In Review.
| 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 one real behavioral nuance — items count only if their status is "explicitly" set, implying inferred/derived statuses are excluded. It says nothing about pagination (first defaults to 100, max 100) or what includeArchived changes.
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 or repetition. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is part of why other dimensions are starved.
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 four-parameter query with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. An agent cannot learn pagination limits, archive behavior, or the meaning of owner/number from this definition.
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 four parameters, so the description carries the burden and fails: owner, number, first, and includeArchived are never mentioned. At best the phrase "items" weakly implies the owner/number project coordinates, but there is no explanation of pagination or archive inclusion.
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 ("Return") plus the exact filter that defines the result set ("Project Status is explicitly In Review"), which distinguishes it from queue-like siblings such as get_blockers, get_unassigned_work, and get_backlog. It stops short of naming an alternative, so it is clear but not sibling-routing.
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?
There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus get_my_work, get_backlog, get_blockers, or list_github_project_items. Usage is only inferable from the filter phrase, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.