GitHub Actions MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Cancel a running workflow' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether cancellation is reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to the workflow after cancellation. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context like required permissions, side effects, error handling, and return values. Given the complexity of canceling workflows and the absence of structured behavioral data, more detail is needed.

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 100%, with both parameters ('repo' and 'run_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Cancel') and target ('a running workflow'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gha_set_workflow_state' (which might also affect workflow state) or 'gha_rerun_workflow' (which might involve similar workflow manipulation).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the workflow must be running), exclusions (e.g., cannot cancel completed workflows), or when to choose siblings like 'gha_rerun_workflow' (for restarting) or 'gha_set_workflow_state' (for other state changes).

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