my_contributionsCheck the status of your GitHub contributions to The Intelligence Radar, either all submissions or one entry with reviewers’ decisions and reasons.
The status of your contributions to The Intelligence Radar, from GitHub: all of them, or one in full with the reviewers' decisions and reasons.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | One contribution, such as C-0007 or #7; leave it out for all of them |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2026.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the data originates from GitHub, and the single-item mode returns reviewers' decisions and reasons, which tells the agent the payload shape differs by mode even though no output schema exists.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the core resource, and the branching scope is stated compactly. The colon-and-clause construction ('from GitHub: all of them, or one in full with...') is slightly awkward to parse, but nothing is redundant.
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 single optional-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies what matters: the two modes, output-source, and the richer content of single-item responses. The only gap is any hint about volume or ordering when fetching all contributions, which is a minor omission.
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% and the id parameter already documents the accepted formats (C-0007, #7) plus the leave-it-out behavior, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces the all-vs-one distinction and adds that the single mode yields full detail with reviewer decisions, but contributes no format or constraint detail the schema lacks.
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?
States a specific verb-and-resource pairing: retrieving the status of 'your contributions' to The Intelligence Radar, with an explicit two-mode scope ('all of them, or one in full'). An agent can distinguish this from submit_contribution, revise_contribution, and withdraw_contribution purely from the wording, since those are mutations while this is a status read.
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 conveys when each mode applies (omit the id for all, supply it for one in full) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance against a sibling, and list_judgements/get_entry could plausibly surface overlapping reviewer-related data. Usage is strongly implied rather than routed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.