GitHub Actions MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a mutation (re-running) but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's idempotent, or what happens to the original run. For a tool that likely modifies system state, this is inadequate transparency.

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 phrase ('Re-run a workflow'), front-loading the core action without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with behavioral implications, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return values, error conditions, or critical context like authentication needs or side effects. For a tool that re-runs workflows, more detail is warranted.

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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'workflow' relates to 'run_id' and 'repo'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics effectively.

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 'Re-run a workflow' states the basic action but lacks specificity. It mentions the verb ('Re-run') and resource ('workflow'), but doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'gha_trigger_workflow' (which creates new runs) or 'gha_cancel_run' (which stops runs). The purpose is clear but generic.

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., needing an existing workflow run), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'gha_diagnose_failure' (for analysis) or 'gha_trigger_workflow' (for new runs). Usage is implied but not articulated.

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