mcp-builder-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses some behavioral traits: it's a write operation (creates repo, uploads directory), has dependencies on previous steps, and returns specific outputs (repo_url, message, next_step_guidance). However, it lacks details on authentication needs, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the repo already 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by prerequisites, parameter details, and return values. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, using bullet-like formatting for parameters without being verbose.

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 and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the tool's context: purpose, workflow step, prerequisites, parameters, and return values. It's complete enough for a tool with 3 optional parameters in a known workflow, though it could benefit from more behavioral details like error cases or side effects.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for all 3 parameters: 'repo_name: optional repo name; default unique name (base + timestamp) to avoid repeats.', 'visibility: "public" or "private". Default: "public".', and 'source_dir: optional path to generated directory; default: get_stored("output_dir").' This provides clear context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a new GitHub repo and upload the generated MCP server directory.' It specifies the verb (create and upload), resource (GitHub repo with MCP server directory), and scope (step 6 of a workflow). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_repo_email_to_user' which might also involve GitHub repos.

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'Requires step 5 (generate_mcp_server).' It also specifies dependencies ('Uses stored output_dir if source_dir not provided') and context ('Completes workflow step 6'). This clearly indicates when to use this tool and its prerequisites within the workflow.

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