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 'supports searching in filenames, paths, and content' and references 'GitHub's powerful search syntax,' which adds some context about search capabilities. However, it lacks details on critical behaviors such as pagination (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of search results. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

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 three sentences that are front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds context about GitHub search, and the third specifies search scopes. There's no wasted text, and each sentence contributes meaningfully, though it could be slightly more structured for 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 tool's complexity (search functionality with 4 parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and search scopes but lacks details on behavioral aspects like result format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. Without an output schema, the description doesn't explain return values, which is a gap. It's adequate for a simple search tool but could be more comprehensive to fully guide an agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all parameters (query, searchIn, page, perPage). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'search query' and 'searching in filenames, paths, and content' which aligns with the schema's details for 'query' and 'searchIn'. It doesn't provide additional syntax examples or usage nuances, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating with extra insights.

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: 'Search for notes, documents, and files within your Obsidian vault on GitHub.' It specifies the resource (Obsidian vault on GitHub) and the action (search), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like searchIssues, which might search different content types. The mention of 'find specific knowledge base content' adds context but doesn't fully distinguish from potential alternatives.

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 context by mentioning 'search for notes, documents, and files' and 'find specific knowledge base content,' suggesting it's for retrieving files in a knowledge base. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like getFileContents (for reading specific files) or searchIssues (for issue tracking), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. 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.