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 the action ('trigger') but doesn't describe key behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the trigger is synchronous or asynchronous, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 ('Trigger a workflow_dispatch event') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 triggering a workflow (a mutation operation with potential side effects), no annotations, no output schema, and the description's minimal content, it is incomplete. The agent lacks crucial information about behavior, return values, error handling, and usage context, which are essential for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (repo, workflow, ref, inputs) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints not in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 'Trigger a workflow_dispatch event' clearly states the action (trigger) and the resource (workflow_dispatch event), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gha_rerun_workflow' or 'gha_set_workflow_state', which also involve workflow execution control, so it doesn't reach the highest score for sibling 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., when a workflow_dispatch is appropriate vs. automated triggers), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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