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. It states it's a list operation, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or add any context about permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in describing how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 waste: 'List workflows in a repository'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration or 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 tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks context on behavioral traits like safety, permissions, or return values. For a list operation, this is a moderate gap, but the simplicity of the tool keeps it from being severely incomplete.

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 state) fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the format of 'owner/repo' or the implications of the state filter. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the 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 'List workflows in a repository' clearly states the action (list) and resource (workflows), with the scope (in a repository) specified. It distinguishes from siblings like gha_get_workflow (retrieve a single workflow) and gha_list_runs (list runs, not workflows), but doesn't explicitly contrast with gha_set_workflow_state or gha_trigger_workflow, which are different operations. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 siblings like gha_get_workflow for retrieving a specific workflow or gha_list_runs for listing runs instead of workflows. There's no context on prerequisites, such as needing repository access, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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