GitHub Actions MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get workflow definition and metadata', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes error handling, or details the metadata structure. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform the agent about key behavioral traits.

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 with a single, direct sentence: 'Get workflow definition and metadata'. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the core purpose without redundancy.

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 complexity of GitHub Actions workflows and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'definition and metadata' includes, potential response formats, or error conditions. For a tool that likely returns structured data about workflows, more context is needed to help the agent understand the output and usage fully.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('repo' and 'workflow'). The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Since the schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('Get') and the target resource ('workflow definition and metadata'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'gha_list_workflows' (which lists workflows) or 'gha_get_run' (which gets run details), missing an opportunity for precise distinction.

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. Given siblings like 'gha_list_workflows' (for listing workflows) and 'gha_get_run' (for getting run details), there's no indication of the specific context or prerequisites for selecting this tool, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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