MCP Private GitHub Search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving commit history with detailed diffs, which hints at read-only behavior, but does not specify authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or pagination details. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the second sentence could be slightly more concise by integrating the diff detail into the first sentence without losing clarity.

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 a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and high-level behavior but lacks details on authentication, error handling, and return format, which are important for effective use. It compensates somewhat by specifying the repository and context.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the tool retrieves commits over time with diffs, but it does not provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples for parameters. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('retrieve', 'track') and resources ('commit history from GitHub'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on commit history rather than file contents, file search, or issue search. It explicitly mentions the specific repository (johndoe-org/obsidian-vault) and the context of an Obsidian vault knowledge base.

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 implies usage for tracking evolution of notes/ideas over time with diffs, which provides some context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like getFileContents or searchFiles, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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