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. While 'analyze' and 'diagnosis' suggest this is a read-only analysis tool, it doesn't clarify whether this performs any mutations, what permissions are required, what format the analysis returns, or whether it has rate limits. The optional AI diagnosis mention adds some context but lacks specifics about what this entails.

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 extremely concise at just 8 words, front-loading the core purpose ('Analyze a failed workflow run') with the optional feature ('with optional AI diagnosis') as a secondary note. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or 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 diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'analyze' actually produces - whether it's a summary, root cause analysis, suggested fixes, or just aggregated logs. The 'optional AI diagnosis' is mentioned but undefined. Given the complexity of workflow failure analysis and lack of structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps.

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 well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (repo format, run_id type). This meets the baseline 3 score since the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Analyze a failed workflow run' with the specific action 'analyze' and resource 'failed workflow run'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like gha_get_run (which fetches run details) or gha_get_run_logs (which retrieves logs) by focusing on diagnosis/analysis rather than basic data retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly mention GitHub Actions context or differentiate 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?

The description implies usage context through 'failed workflow run' - suggesting this tool should be used specifically when a workflow has failed. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like gha_get_run (for general run info) or gha_get_run_logs (for raw logs). No when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites are mentioned.

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