mcp-creator

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool performs write operations (initialize, create, push), requires external dependencies (gh CLI installed and authenticated), and has a specific workflow timing (after PyPI publishing). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like overwriting existing git configurations or error handling.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and prerequisites, the second provides usage timing. Every element earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the core actions.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multi-step GitHub setup), no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, and timing, but lacks details on parameter usage or potential errors. The output schema likely handles return values, reducing the burden on the description.

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 must compensate. It doesn't explicitly mention any parameters, though it implies 'project_dir' through 'Initialize git' and 'repo_name' through 'create a GitHub repo.' The description adds minimal semantic context beyond what the schema titles provide, resulting in a baseline score.

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 specific actions: 'Initialize git, create a GitHub repo, and push the project.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'scaffold_server' or 'publish_package' by focusing on GitHub repository setup and initial push operations, not package creation or publishing.

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 states when to use: 'Run this after publishing to PyPI so the repo URL can be included in the LAUNCHGUIDE.' It also specifies prerequisites: 'Requires the gh CLI to be installed and authenticated.' This provides clear context and timing guidance relative to other tools in the workflow.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.