GitHub Actions MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'enable or disable' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to in-progress runs when disabled. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters documented elsewhere.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'enabling' or 'disabling' actually means in context (e.g., does it affect scheduled triggers? existing runs?), what permissions are needed, or what the response contains. This leaves critical gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 clear parameter documentation in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (repo format, workflow identifier, boolean enable/disable). This meets the baseline expectation when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Enable or disable a workflow' clearly states the action (enable/disable) and resource (workflow), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'gha_trigger_workflow' or 'gha_cancel_run' which also affect workflow states, leaving room for confusion about when to use each.

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. With siblings like 'gha_trigger_workflow' (initiates execution) and 'gha_cancel_run' (stops execution), there's no indication that this tool is for toggling the active/inactive state of a workflow definition rather than controlling execution. This omission could lead to misuse.

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