GitHub Actions MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read operation, it doesn't mention whether this requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the output format looks like. The description is too minimal to adequately inform the agent about how this tool behaves beyond the basic action.

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 5 words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted words. Every element ('List', 'workflow runs', 'with filtering') earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a 'workflow run' is in this context, what the output contains, or important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements or result ordering. The agent would need to guess too much about how to properly use this tool.

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 description mentions 'with filtering' which hints at the purpose of the parameters, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. With 67% schema description coverage (4 of 6 parameters have descriptions), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate for the undocumented parameters (status and conclusion have no schema descriptions) or explain parameter interactions.

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 'List workflow runs with filtering' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('workflow runs'), and specifies the filtering capability. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'gha_list_workflows' which lists workflows rather than runs, leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope differentiation.

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 like 'gha_get_run' (for a single run) or 'gha_list_workflows' (for workflows rather than runs). It mentions filtering but doesn't specify when filtering is appropriate or what the default behavior might be without filters.

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