forgejo-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools pair a unique resource with a unique action, so issue/PR/review/file/workflow tools are easy to tell apart. The only mild ambiguity is among list_repos, list_org_repos, and list_my_repos, which overlap somewhat depending on the owner scope.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case convention throughout, using predictable verbs like list, get, create, update, delete, merge, and dispatch. Even grouped features like get_my_user/list_my_repos and mark_notifications_read follow the same pattern.
Tool Count2/5
50 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold and makes the server heavy for an agent to reason over, even though Forgejo is a broad platform. Several niche read/list operations could be consolidated or exposed as optional subresources.
Completeness3/5
Core repository, file, issue, pull request, and review workflows are well covered. However, labels and milestones only support list/create with no update/delete, workflow support lacks listing/canceling/rerunning, and pull-review comments cannot be edited or deleted.
Average 3.2/5 across 50 of 50 tools scored. Lowest: 1.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the mutating action already implied by the name. It does not mention that the milestone is created in the owner/repo, whether replacement or duplication occurs, permissions required, or what response is returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The definition is extremely short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. The single sentence does not earn its place because it adds no information beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter create operation with no annotations and zero schema coverage, the description is grossly incomplete. Even with an output schema present, the agent is left without context on required inputs, side effects, or how this milestone relates to existing repository resources.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain the parameters, but it names none. It does not clarify the meaning of owner/repo/title/description beyond their generic labels or any relationships between them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a milestone.' restates the tool name almost verbatim and adds no detail about what a milestone is or what repository context it applies to. It names a verb and resource, but it is effectively a tautology and does not distinguish this from sibling tools beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of related tools such as list_milestones, create_issue, or create_label, and no prerequisites such as an existing repository are mentioned. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'create'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, but 'Delete a repository.' reveals nothing about the irreversibility, permission requirements, or cascading effects of repository deletion. For a destructive GitHub operation, this omission is significant.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, but brevity is the only virtue. It under-specifies behavior and parameters, so this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. Even though an output schema may exist, an agent cannot safely invoke this tool without knowing that repository deletion is permanent and what prerequisites apply.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds no parameter meaning. Both 'owner' and 'repo' appear only as names/titles, and the description does not clarify their format, relationship, or required values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Delete') and a specific resource ('a repository'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling file/branch/comment deletion tools at a basic level. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from alternatives or add scope constraints, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternative deletion tools such as delete_file, delete_branch, or delete_issue_comment. There are no prerequisites, ownership conditions, or examples, so an agent must infer suitability from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Delete a file' correctly signals a destructive mutation, but it does not disclose that the deletion is performed via a new commit (explaining the required 'message' parameter), that the operation is irreversible, or that the SHA may be needed to avoid conflicts. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The three-word description is front-loaded and has zero waste, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A destructive tool with six parameters needs more than its action verb to be appropriately sized, so the brevity does not earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists (relieving the need to document return values), the description omits essential operational context: that owner/repo identify a GitHub repository, that deletion commits to the repo, how branch defaults behave, and the SHA prerequisite. For a tool of this complexity with no annotations, this is far from complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description contributes nothing about any of the six parameters. The roles of 'message' (commit message), 'sha' (blob SHA), and 'branch' (target branch) are left entirely to name-based inference, which is insufficient for an agent to construct correct arguments.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a file'), which is clear and immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_file, update_file, get_file_content, and delete_repo. However, it lacks any scope qualifier (e.g., that it operates on a file in a GitHub repo), so it stops short of the richer specificity seen in top-tier descriptions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description when delete_file is preferred over delete_repo or delete_branch, nor are any prerequisites or conditions mentioned (e.g., needing the blob SHA). This matches the 'no guidance' level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the base64 encoding behavior but says nothing about commit behavior, branch selection, error conditions, or what happens if the target filepath already exists. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: two short sentences with no filler. The base64 conditional is placed after the core action, which is reasonable. However, the brevity contributes to significant under-specification elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given seven parameters, no annotations, and zero schema descriptions, this description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It omits where the file is created, which branch is used, and how conflicts are handled. The output schema may cover return values, but it cannot compensate for the missing operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain seven parameters but only adds meaning for base64. The meanings of owner, repo, filepath, content, message, and branch are left entirely to inference from their property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action and resource: 'Create a file.' This clearly identifies the operation and is naturally distinguished from sibling tools like update_file and delete_file by verb. It does not explicitly mention repository scope or that this creates a new file rather than overwriting, so it stops short of maximal clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to choose create_file over update_file or delete_file, nor any mention of prerequisites or scenarios. The only usable guidance is for the base64 parameter, which is parameter-level detail rather than tool-selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool submits a review and lists event values, but it does not explain side effects, permissions, whether the PR must already exist, how comments are handled, or what the response contains. The output schema exists but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the action and the most important parameter constraint. It wastes no words, though it is so brief that it omits other useful details. This is concise but not richly structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, six parameters, and no schema-level descriptions, this description is not complete. It leaves key parameters like 'index' ambiguous, gives no usage or behavioral context, and only partially explains the event parameter. The output schema helps with return values, but the agent still lacks enough context to invoke the tool confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, but it only addresses 'event' by listing APPROVED/REQUEST_CHANGES/COMMENT. It does not clarify 'index' (likely the pull request number), 'body', 'comments', or the roles of owner/repo. The event value list is useful, but five of six parameters remain semantically unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Submit') and a specific resource ('pull request review'), and the event values make the operation's scope clear. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the verb and resource are distinctive enough to separate it from list_pull_reviews, get_pull_review, and merge_pull_request.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_pull_reviews or get_pull_review. The only contextual hint is the verb 'Submit,' which implies use when creating a review, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states 'Delete a branch' and gives no information about side effects, restrictions (e.g., default branch cannot be deleted), protected branch behavior, or whether the deletion is permanent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and quickly conveys the core action, though it lacks additional structure that could have made it more informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive 3-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention important context such as branch protection, default branch restrictions, or error conditions. Even with an output schema present, an agent cannot fully judge when and how to safely invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The parameter names owner, repo, and branch are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify their roles, formats, or constraints beyond what the raw schema already shows.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action and resource: delete a branch. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling delete tools like delete_repo, delete_file, and delete_issue_comment because the resource is 'branch', though it does not explicitly call out those distinctions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites. It does not say when deletion is allowed, what happens to associated open pull requests, or how this relates to other branch-related tools like create_branch or list_branches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 indicates a mutating action by 'Trigger', but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or response semantics. The agent is left to infer most behavioral expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though somewhat minimal. The double backticks around 'workflow_dispatch' are a minor formatting defect, but the structural efficiency is good.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a five-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, this description is severely inadequate. It gives no information about how any parameter maps to the requested workflow run, required inputs, or branch targeting. The presence of an output schema does not make up for missing parameter and invocation context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the five parameters. It does not explain that 'workflow_id' may be a numeric ID or filename, what 'ref' means, or how 'inputs' should be structured. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Trigger' and the resource 'workflow run', and specifies the mechanism 'workflow_dispatch' event. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools, but there is no other workflow-triggering sibling, so the purpose is still clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied: when an agent needs to manually trigger a workflow run. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites like permissions, and no 'when not to use' context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the operation and explains the SHA parameter; it doesn't disclose that updating typically creates a commit, requires write authorization, or can fail on SHA mismatch. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two short sentences, each adding information. The purpose is front-loaded and the SHA clarification is relevant. No fluff, though more detail could be added without hurting structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 8 parameters, 5 required, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It doesn't explain commit behavior, branch handling, base64 encoding, or the role of the message parameter. An agent would likely need to consult external API docs to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only clarifies 'sha is the current file blob SHA'. The other seven parameters—content, base64, branch, message, filepath, owner, repo—are left entirely to inference, which is a significant gap for an 8-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the operation with a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing file.' It implicitly differentiates from create_file and delete_file by saying 'existing,' though it doesn't name sibling tools explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus create_file, delete_file, or get_file_content. The description doesn't mention prerequisites such as the file needing to exist or when a SHA is required, leaving the agent to infer conditions from parameter names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds no behavioral context beyond the bare action itself. It does not mention pagination semantics, ordering, or whether all branches or only the default branch are returned. The content is consistent with the annotation, so there is no contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with zero filler — every word earns its place. It is efficient, though so terse that it forfeits the opportunity to add usage or pagination guidance that could have been packed into one more clause.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity, the output schema covers return values and the annotation covers safety, so the one-liner nearly suffices for correct invocation. The clear gaps are pagination defaults and explicit routing guidance to sibling branch tools. For a read-only list operation with this schema richness, the definition is minimally adequate but leaves those decisions to the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no parameter-level meaning for owner, repo, page, or limit. The conventional GitHub names are partially self-explanatory, but the description does nothing to compensate for the missing schema documentation, such as defaults or interaction of page/limit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (list), resource (branches), and scope (in a repository) in six words. It is unambiguous against the branch-related siblings create_branch and delete_branch because the read verb and distinct resource make the intent clear, even though no sibling is named explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative. It never contrasts list_branches with create_branch/delete_branch, nor does it place branch listing among the other read tools in the sibling set. Usage context exists only implicitly in the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates safety, and the description does not add behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention whether private repositories are included, whether authentication is required, how pagination behaves, or any filtering semantics. The description provides only the basic read action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, but the description omits usage context, parameter clarification, and behavioral details. The presence of closely related siblings like list_repos and list_my_repos makes the lack of differentiation a meaningful completeness gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate for the absence of parameter details. It does not explain org format, page meaning, or limit behavior. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the tool description adds no semantic value for any of the three parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List an organization's repositories.' This clearly identifies the operation and its target. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like list_repos or list_my_repos, so it stops one step short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many repository-listing siblings such as list_repos, list_my_repos, or search_repos. No mention of authentication scope, organization name requirements, or exclusion criteria is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination behavior, default branch handling, output ordering, or rate-limit implications. 'Branch optional' merely mirrors what the schema already expresses via default null.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It loses a point because it is slightly under-specified for a five-parameter tool, but it is not verbose and is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema and readOnlyHint annotation cover the return shape and safety profile, so the description is not wholly inadequate. However, it omits alternatives like get_commit and any detail about pagination or branch filtering behavior, which matters given the large sibling tool set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate for the five parameters. It only mentions that branch is optional; owner, repo, page, and limit receive no semantic guidance, and pagination behavior is not explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('List') and resource ('commits in a repository'), so the core purpose is clear. It also notes that branch is optional. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_commit or other list_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over get_commit, when to supply a branch, or how this relates to other commit-related tools. It essentially restates the tool's function without usage context or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the core creation action but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or that default settings apply (e.g., private=false, auto_init=false).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word is meaningful and the core action is stated immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists, the description lacks parameter explanation and usage context. For a tool with no annotations and four parameters where schema coverage is 0%, this is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters: name, private, auto_init, or description. The description adds no meaning beyond what is already visible in the input schema property names and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('repository owned by the authenticated user'), making it clear this creates a new personal repo. This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like fork_repo, delete_repo, or get_repo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fork_repo for copying an existing repo. The description gives context ('owned by the authenticated user') but no explicit usage conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description's 'List' is consistent with that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context—nothing about pagination, member scope, or auth requirements—so it contributes no transparency beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple read-only list tool with an output schema and only three parameters, so a terse description is acceptable. But it lacks any mention of pagination behavior or how to identify the org, and it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools. These gaps make it minimally sufficient rather than complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's silence. It vaguely ties the org parameter to 'an organization,' but says nothing about the page and limit parameters. Pagination semantics are entirely absent, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('an organization's members'), making the core action unmistakable. It semantically stands apart from sibling tools like list_org_repos or list_user_orgs, though it does not explicitly call out alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_org_repos or search_org_teams. The description only states what it does, providing no exclusion criteria, prerequisites, or context to help an agent choose among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds the valid `state` values. However, it does not disclose behavior around pagination defaults, result ordering, or whether `state=null` means all pull requests. Annotations already cover the read-only safety aspect, so the description adds modest but not rich behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the core action and resource. The `state` clarification is concise and useful. It loses one point only because it is so sparse that it leaves important behavioral and parameter context unaddressed, but as a concise opening statement it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists and the read-only annotation is present, the description does not provide enough context for a correct call: it omits pagination semantics, parameter defaults, and any indication of scope (owner/repo) beyond what the schema names. For a list operation with five parameters and zero schema descriptions, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for documenting parameters. It only explains valid values for `state` and leaves `owner`, `repo`, `page`, and `limit` entirely undocumented. While some are self-explanatory by name, the pagination semantics and default behavior are not clarified, which is a significant gap for a 5-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description includes a specific verb ('List') and resource ('pull requests'), and further specifies the `state` filter values (open/closed/all). It clearly conveys the operation and distinguishes it from single-PR operations like get_pull_request, though it does not explicitly state that it operates on a repo-scoped list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_pull_request, list_pull_reviews, or list_issues. The description simply states what it does, with no mention of when it is appropriate or when another sibling tool should be used instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the merge action and allowed method values, but does not disclose consequences such as whether the merge is irreversible, whether write access is required, what happens on conflict, or whether the PR must be open. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: the core action appears first, followed immediately by the key method detail. Every sentence earns its place without filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description omits important operational context for a mutation: no mention of required permissions, mergeability conditions, side effects, or behavior on failure. An agent would need external knowledge to safely invoke this tool in edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add value by enumerating the allowed `method` values, which the schema does not define as an enum. However, owner, repo, and index are left unexplained, though their names are somewhat self-explanatory in a repository context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Merge a pull request.' It is specific about the verb and resource, and the listed merge methods further clarify the intended operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like update_pull_request or create_pull_request, though the merge action is fairly distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites such as mergeability or required permissions. The description simply states what the tool does without situating it among sibling pull request operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the operation as read-only (readOnlyHint=true), so the description needs to add behavioral context beyond that. It does not: no mention of query scope, GitHub search syntax, result matching semantics, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The text essentially restates the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and to the point, but it omits useful details that would not significantly hurt conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there are three parameters, an output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description should still explain search scope, q semantics, and pagination choices to be complete. It currently leaves the agent to infer these from the parameter names and the output schema, which is insufficient for a search endpoint.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify the parameters to compensate. It only restates that q is the search term and says nothing about page or limit formatting, defaults beyond the schema, or query syntax. This is not enough compensation for an undocumented schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('repositories'), making the core function clear. It identifies q as the search term, which helps distinguish it from list_repos and search_users, though it doesn't explicitly call out sibling differences.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for finding repositories by a query, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer search_repos over list_repos, search_users, or other list/search siblings. There are no exclusions or alternative routing hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations only provide readOnlyHint, and the description adds the return envelope {items, total_count}, which is likely already captured by the output schema. It does not disclose matching behavior, pagination semantics, sorting, rate limits, or whether user identity/email fields are included.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single focused sentence with no filler. The action, target resource, and return shape are all included without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one required parameter and an output schema, this is nearly adequate. However, it lacks any usage guidance, query syntax details, or notes on result limits, so an agent may not know when or how effectively to invoke it compared with sibling search tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only paraphrases q as 'matching' and provides no detail on how the query is interpreted or how limit behaves. The schema already shows the default for limit, so the description adds minimal parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('users') with the matching query variable q. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling search_repos tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_repos or list_org_members. The resource name implies the context, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation, and the description's 'List' wording is consistent with that. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the scope, such as whether private repositories are included, how pagination behaves, or any rate-limit considerations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is concise and easy to parse, though the terseness does mean some useful context is absent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema covers return values, and the readOnly annotation covers the safety profile, so the description is not entirely inadequate. But given the ambiguity around what kind of owner is expected and the presence of overlapping sibling tools, the description leaves meaningful gaps for an agent to resolve.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only rephrases the 'owner' parameter as 'owned by owner,' which adds little beyond the schema's own parameter name. The page and limit parameters are not described at all, leaving their semantics to inference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear action ('List') and resource ('repositories') and identifies the scope ('owned by owner'). It is understandable, but it does not distinguish this tool from related siblings such as list_org_repos, list_my_repos, or search_repos, since 'owner' could refer to a user or organization.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use list_repos versus the many sibling list/search tools, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusion conditions. The only contextual hint is 'owned by owner,' which does not help an agent choose among list_org_repos, list_my_repos, or search_repos.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates this is a safe read operation, and the description simply restates that by using 'List'. It adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, visibility of results, or authentication requirements. With no extra behavioral disclosure, the description does not go beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence with no filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for a simple list operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter, read-only list operation with an output schema, the description covers the core action adequately. The missing details around parameter semantics and usage context are minor for this simple tool, but they prevent a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required 'username' parameter with no description and schema description coverage is 0%. The description only weakly implies that 'username' identifies the user whose organizations are being listed, but it does not clarify the expected format, whether this must be an authenticated user, or whether private organizations are included.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('List'), a resource ('organizations'), and a scope ('a user's'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_org_repos and list_org_members because the resource is 'organizations', not repos or members. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_user, list_org_members, or list_org_repos. The description implies usage only through its title and statement, but gives no context, exclusions, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only says 'Create a new issue' and clarifies the labels format; it does not mention permissions, side effects, failure modes, or response behavior. This is a minimal but not misleading disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise: two short sentences with no filler. The purpose statement is front-loaded, and the labels clarification earns its place by adding value beyond the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema and output schema cover required and optional parameters and the return shape, so the description need not repeat those. The missing elements are when-to-use guidance and behavioral context such as permission requirements or label ID validation, which leave minor gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It usefully clarifies that labels should be numeric label IDs, resolving the anyOf type ambiguity in the schema. However, it leaves the other five parameters without any semantic explanation, though most are self-explanatory from their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new issue'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling update/comment tools. The added note about labels provides useful context, but the description does not explicitly differentiate it from related issue actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_issue or create_issue_comment. The only implied usage is that the verb 'Create' suggests a new resource, but there are no explicit conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the action 'Create' without covering side effects, duplicate-label behavior, authorization requirements, or failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and the color clarification is needed and earns its place. There is no redundant wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, the description omits operational context such as behavior when a label with the same name already exists and the fact that owner/repo must reference an existing repository. Given the simplicity of the operation, this is a moderate but not severe gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds a valuable format hint for the color parameter ('hex string like #ff0000'), which is not present in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the other three parameters (owner, repo, name) are left unexplained, though their roles are largely inferable from the tool name and GitHub conventions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a label.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_labels or create_milestone by resource type, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing repository, or how it relates to label management tools, leaving the agent to infer context from the schema and tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It communicates the destructive nature of the operation but does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, error behavior, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It communicates the core action and target efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists and reduces the need to explain return values, the description still omits important context for a destructive operation: permission requirements, permanence of deletion, and the meaning of the required 'index' parameter. The description is minimally adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not clarify any parameters. Most parameter names like owner, repo, and comment_id are self-explanatory, but 'index' is ambiguous and could be misread as a comment index rather than an issue or pull request number.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb with a specific resource: 'Delete a comment on an issue or pull request.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_issue_comments, create_issue_comment, and edit_issue_comment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or restrictions mentioned. The only usage signal is implied by the verb 'Delete,' which is insufficient for contextual decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only indicates that the operation is an edit, but does not disclose whether the body is fully replaced, what permissions are required, or what happens if the comment or issue does not exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with five required parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, this is not complete enough to guarantee correct invocation. The output schema helps with return values, but the description still lacks explicit parameter mapping and behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description needs to compensate, but it only hints that 'index' relates to the issue or pull request. It does not explicitly explain owner, repo, index, comment_id, or how body is used, leaving the ambiguous 'index' parameter under-described.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('edit') on a specific resource ('a comment') and scopes it to 'an issue or pull request.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling operations like create_issue_comment, delete_issue_comment, and list_issue_comments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as create_issue_comment or delete_issue_comment. It also does not mention prerequisites like comment ownership, permissions, or whether the comment must already exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool readOnly, and the word 'List' is consistent with that. The description contributes the filter behavior of state (open/closed/all), but doesn't disclose default state or pagination behavior. Since the safety profile is covered by annotations, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key parameter values are neatly formatted in backticks and each word adds information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only listing endpoint with an output schema and readOnlyHint, the description is minimally sufficient: owner/repo are obvious, and state values are given. However, it omits pagination semantics and the default state, and the bare schema doesn't fill that gap. It is viable but leaves room for misinterpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It clarifies state values and implies owner/repo via 'repository', but leaves page, limit, and the default behavior of state unexplained. This is only partial compensation for an undocumented schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description names a specific verb ('List'), resource ('milestones'), and scope ('in a repository'), and adds the valid state values. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools such as create_milestone or list_labels, but the resource and verb make the basic purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_issues or create_milestone, and no exclusions are stated. The only contextual hint is the 'repository' scope, so an agent must infer selection from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing mutation behavior. It only states the operation and target fields; it does not mention write-permission needs, partial-update semantics, consequences of setting 'state', or any side effects. This is comparable to a bare 'update' statement without safety context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the verb and the scope immediately, and every word contributes to the tool's meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists, the tool still lacks an explanation of how the issue is identified via owner/repo/index, the optional/partial-update behavior, or valid state values. Given six parameters, no annotations, and zero schema descriptions, this is too thin to fully support correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It clarifies that title, body, and state are updatable, but it does not explain the required owner, repo, and index locators or what values state accepts, leaving a significant portion of the input semantics undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Update') with a concrete resource ('an issue') and names the three mutable fields (title, body, state), which is enough to distinguish it from create_issue, get_issue, and the separate update_pull_request sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_issue, get_issue, or list_issues, and no mention of prerequisites such as the issue needing to already exist. The context is not stated, so the agent must infer appropriate usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only safety profile. The description adds the 'authenticated user' scoping context, which is useful auth-related information, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, notification types, or any other behavioral traits beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states exactly what the tool does and for whom. For a simple list operation, this is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a low-complexity, read-only list tool with an output schema and only two pagination parameters. The description covers the essential scope and is mostly complete, though it could briefly mention pagination behavior to remove residual ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the page and limit parameters, but it never mentions pagination, defaults, or how these parameters affect results. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('notifications') and scopes it to 'the authenticated user', distinguishing it from action-based siblings like mark_notifications_read. It doesn't explicitly name siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of how it relates to mark_notifications_read or other notification-related operations. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safe read-only nature, and the description does not add behavioral context beyond that. No authentication requirements, data scoping, or error behavior is disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description supplies the essential selection and invocation information. It could strengthen disambiguation from get_my_user, but the username parameter makes the intended call clear enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to help explain the parameter. 'by username' clarifies that the required parameter is a username/identifier, which is useful, but it does not add format or constraint details beyond the schema's own 'username' title.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('information about a user') with an explicit lookup method ('by username'). This distinguishes it from search_users and get_my_user, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_my_user or search_users. The only implicit usage signal is the username parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the absence of write side effects, and the description is consistent with that. The description adds little beyond repository scope; it does not disclose pagination, sorting, or default limits, but these are minor and partially recoverable from the schema and output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a simple read-only operation. It is slightly under-specified, but economy is a strength here.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list-labels call, the description plus the schema (required owner/repo, optional page/limit, existing output schema, and readOnlyHint) is largely sufficient. It does not explain pagination defaults or ordering, but those are minor and not required for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description names none of the four parameters. It does not explain how page and limit behave or clarify owner/repo beyond their schema titles, so the low-coverage requirement for description compensation is not met.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('issue labels') with repository scope, making the operation unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools such as create_label and list_issues because it names the exact object type and action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of create_label for creating labels or list_milestones for other repository metadata, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description merely restates that it lists runs. It adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination behavior, ordering, or rate-limit considerations, though it does not contradict the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the optional filtering detail appended. No filler or repetition is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description plus annotations and output schema give enough for a basic listing call, but it lacks guidance on filter values, pagination, and how it complements get_workflow_run. It is minimally viable without being rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies status and event as optional filters, but it says nothing about page, limit, owner, or repo semantics, leaving most parameters to be inferred from their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List Actions workflow runs', making it clear this retrieves multiple workflow runs. The contrast with sibling 'get_workflow_run' and 'dispatch_workflow' is evident from the wording, so an agent can distinguish it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It mentions optional status/event filters but gives no guidance about when to prefer this tool over get_workflow_run or other siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutating action ('Add') but does not mention permissions, idempotency, whether the comment is permanent, or what side effects occur. It mostly restates the intended purpose rather than revealing 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and zero parameter descriptions, this is under-specified. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the ambiguous 'index' parameter and lack of usage context leave enough gaps that an agent may not invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not define owner, repo, index, or body. While owner/repo/body are somewhat self-explanatory, 'index' is ambiguous and never clarified as the issue or pull request number.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('a comment to an issue or pull request'), making the action and target clear. It also naturally distinguishes this tool from sibling list/edit/delete comment tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when you want to create a new comment on an issue or PR, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over edit_issue_comment, delete_issue_comment, or create_pull_review. No exclusions or alternative routing guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint=true annotation and confirms the operation is a read-only fetch. However, it adds little beyond that: it does not mention authentication requirements, failure behaviors, or what set of repository data is returned, though an output schema is present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and the required identifying information efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-string-parameter tool with an output schema and a read-only annotation, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it relies heavily on the agent already knowing GitHub owner/repo conventions and does not route the agent away from obvious sibling tools like list_repos or search_repos.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. Saying 'by owner and name' maps to the owner and repo parameters but largely restates them with synonyms and gives no format, constraint, or example for either value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('repository'), and 'by owner and name' clarifies that this is a single-repository lookup. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like list_repos or search_repos, though it does not explicitly name them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended usage is implied: use this when you need a specific repository by owner and name. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over list_repos, search_repos, or get_file_content, and no when-not-to-use exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature. The description adds useful filter behavior (state values and comma-separated labels), but does not mention pagination, result ordering, or whether pull requests are included in the results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the most important parameter constraints. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema covers return shape and the annotation covers safety, so the remaining needs are usage guidance and pagination behavior. The description gives just enough to list issues with basic filters but lacks a fuller operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates by explaining valid values for state and the format for labels. However, it does not describe page, limit, owner, or repo beyond their schema titles, leaving some semantics to inference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action and resource ('List issues') and is easily distinguished from siblings like get_issue, create_issue, and list_pull_requests. However, it does not explicitly state the repository scope or differentiate itself from closely related tools such as list_issue_comments, relying mostly on the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_issue, list_issue_comments, or list_pull_requests. The description provides filter hints but no context for selecting the tool or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 disclosure. It states only the action and the ref source, but does not mention what happens if the branch already exists, whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are required, or what the response contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and states the key parameters in a compact, readable form.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed. Still, with four required parameters and zero parameter documentation in the schema, the description leaves repository context and edge-case behavior unspecified, making it only minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It partially explains new_branch and old_ref, but leaves owner and repo semantically unexplained. The relationship between old_ref and a commit SHA or branch name is also not clarified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a branch named new_branch from old_ref.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like list_branches or delete_branch. The core action and source reference are immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use this tool when you need to create a new branch from an existing ref. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites or common error cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the operation, such as response scope, required permissions, or rate-limit implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only commit fetch, the description is nearly sufficient, especially with an output schema and read-only annotation present. However, it misses the opportunity to explicitly differentiate itself from list_repo_commits, which is important for tool selection among these siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for the parameters. It mentions SHA, which clarifies the lookup key, but it says nothing about owner or repo, which are required and could benefit from at least a note that they identify the repository.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a single commit by SHA' names a specific verb, resource, and the key identifier. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling list_repo_commits by emphasizing the singular commit and SHA-based lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when the agent already has a SHA and needs one commit, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_repo_commits or other commit-related tools. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals mutation via 'update' but does not disclose side effects such as closing the pull request via state, whether null clears a field, or permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes information about the resource and the fields being updated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutating tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, more operational context is needed. The description omits state value meaning, the role of 'index', and nullable field behavior. The output schema may cover return values, but correct selection and invocation still require details the description does not provide.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for title, body, and state, including that they can be used in any combination ('and/or'). However, it does not explain the meaning of the required 'index' parameter or the acceptable values for 'state', leaving important semantics to inference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('update') with a concrete resource ('pull request') and enumerates the exact mutable fields: title, body, and state. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pull_request, create_pull_request, merge_pull_request, and update_issue.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when modifying a pull request's title, body, or state, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state exclusions. Usage context is inferable, not clearly articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description does not contradict it. No additional behavioral details like pagination, ordering, or response limitations are provided, but none are required for this simple read-only listing operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and readable, though it could have used one more clause to clarify the 'index' parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema and readOnlyHint annotation cover some context, but the description leaves parameter semantics under-specified and does not distinguish clearly enough from related pull request review tools. Adequate for a simple list, but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does little to compensate. 'owner' and 'repo' are interpretable from naming conventions, but 'index' is left ambiguous and is only weakly tied to the pull request by the phrase 'on a pull request.'
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (List), the resource (reviews), and the scope (on a pull request). It is specific enough to be distinguished from siblings like list_pull_review_comments and get_pull_review.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied: use this when you need all reviews for a pull request. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer get_pull_review or list_pull_review_comments, so routing guidance is weak.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates the core effect — a repository is copied into the authenticated user's account — but it does not disclose details such as whether the source repository remains unchanged, whether an existing fork is returned, or whether the operation can be asynchronous.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, and the destination clause adds useful context without verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two required string parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It names the destination and core action, but with no annotations and no mention of edge cases like already-forked repos or ownership restrictions, an agent is left to infer some behavioral details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain the roles of 'owner' and 'repo'. The parameter names are conventional and inferable from the tool name, but the description adds no explicit semantic meaning beyond what the schema already shows.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Fork') with a specific resource ('a repository') and names the destination ('into the authenticated user's account'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling creation, deletion, and file-management tools even without naming alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear context for when to use the tool: forking a repository into the authenticated user's account. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternative tools, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral details beyond read-only retrieval, such as not-found behavior or response properties, but it does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single focused sentence with no filler. The essential qualifier, 'by its numeric index', is front-loaded and every word contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is minimally viable but incomplete. It lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer get_issue over list_issues and provides no semantic help for owner/repo parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only clarifies that 'index' is numeric, leaving 'owner' and 'repo' unexplained in terms of their meaning or required relationship.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('issue'), and the key access condition ('numeric index'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like list_issues (plural, list-oriented) and create_issue/update_issue (mutating operations).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'by its numeric index' implies the condition for using this tool, but it does not explicitly contrast with list_issues or state when not to use it. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the 'Get' wording is consistent with that, so there is no contradiction. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the read-only nature, but the output schema and annotation reduce the need for extensive behavior disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only getter with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify how the parameters map to the pull request and review, nor does it reference list_pull_reviews as a prerequisite source of review IDs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. In particular, 'index' is ambiguous (likely the pull request number) and 'review_id' is not clarified, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names and inference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource: 'a specific review on a pull request.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pull_reviews, which returns all reviews, and get_pull_request, which returns the pull request itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'specific review' implies this tool is for retrieving a single review by ID, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus list_pull_reviews or create_pull_review. No alternative tools or exclusion conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation is read-only, so the description primarily adds scoping context. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or that this returns review comments rather than general PR comments, but it does not contradict the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the action and the target resource immediately, making it easy for an agent to process quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema and readOnlyHint relieve some burden, and the action is simple, but the description leaves the 'index' parameter undefined and does not hint at the prerequisite workflow of obtaining a review_id. It is adequate for a straightforward list operation but incomplete for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It fails to clarify the ambiguous 'index' parameter, which is likely the pull request number, and does not explain how 'review_id' maps to the review. Owner and repo are obvious, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and names the exact resource ('comments on a specific pull request review'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_pull_reviews, which list reviews, and list_issue_comments, which target issue comments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'specific pull request review' implies the tool should be used when a review_id is already known, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_pull_reviews or get_pull_review. The usage is inferable but not explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states that a pull request will be created but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or failure modes. A mutation tool with no annotations should reveal more about the impact of the call.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loading the action before the key semantic detail. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for understanding what the tool does and the critical head/base relationship, and an output schema exists to describe the result. However, it does not cover usage boundaries, behavioral side effects, or the optional body parameter's role. For a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, this is a noticeable but not severe gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters beyond the input schema. It specifically explains the two most ambiguous parameters, head as source branch and base as target, which prevents a common inversion mistake. The remaining parameters (owner, repo, title, body) are self-explanatory from their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Create a pull request,' a specific verb and resource that clearly names the operation. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_pull_request, update_pull_request, and merge_pull_request by the creation action. The head/base clarification adds precision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The verb 'Create' implies this is for opening a new pull request, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this over update_pull_request or merge_pull_request. Usage is only implied by the tool name and action, with no guidance on prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds the scoping behavior that this is a direct lookup by numeric index, which is useful but does not disclose potential edge cases like 404 behavior or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does and how the pull request is identified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema and readOnlyHint, the description is nearly complete for a simple read-only getter. A brief pointer to list_pull_requests for obtaining the index would improve it, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate for all three parameters. It only clarifies 'index' as numeric, while owner and repo are left entirely to inference from their names without format or context details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('a pull request'), and specifies the retrieval key ('by its numeric index'). This distinguishes it from related tools like get_pull_review or list_pull_requests without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the intended usage: retrieve a single pull request when its numeric index is known. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, nor does it point to alternatives such as list_pull_requests for finding the index first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is fully covered. The description adds useful scoping context ('owned by the authenticated user') but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination behavior or ordering.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and scope with no filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool with an output schema and only two optional pagination parameters, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is that it does not explain the page/limit parameters, but the tool's complexity is low enough that this is a minor omission.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention page or limit at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the definition adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, so it fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' plus a clear resource and scope: repositories owned by the authenticated user. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_org_repos, list_repos, and search_repos without needing to open the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool is for retrieving the current user's own repositories, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_repos or list_org_repos, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already discloses the operation is read-only, and the description is consistent with that. The description adds no extra behavioral detail beyond the core action, but the operation is simple and an output schema exists to describe the return value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to the meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list operation with an output schema and readOnlyHint, the definition is nearly complete. The main gap is the absence of parameter-level explanation, but complexity is low and the operation is straightforward.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only says 'of a repository', which hints at the 'repo' parameter but leaves 'owner' undefined and does not explain how the two parameters jointly identify the target repository.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the topics of a repository'). It is clear and unambiguous, and it distinguishes this tool from all sibling tools, none of which address repository topics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied: call this when you need a repository's topics. There is no explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance, but the tool name and description make the use case obvious and no sibling competes with it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which already establishes the safety profile, and the description is consistent with that. No additional behavioral traits such as error behavior, rate limits, or auth requirements are disclosed, but none are necessary for this simple getter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single declarative sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the verb and noun, and every word contributes to the meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool is a straightforward read operation, annotations cover the read-only nature, and an output schema exists, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is the absence of a pointer to list_workflow_runs as the way to discover run IDs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that run_id is the workflow run identifier, while owner and repo are left to their conventional and self-explanatory names. This is adequate but not detailed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Get', names the resource 'Actions workflow run', and scopes to a single run by ID. This clearly distinguishes it from list_workflow_runs and dispatch_workflow even without naming them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is used when a specific run_id is known, and it contrasts with listing runs. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_workflow_runs or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds the useful behavioral scope that this endpoint covers both issues and pull requests. Pagination behavior is not described, but the page/limit parameters and the available output schema reduce the impact of that gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words. The clarifying phrase 'issue or pull request' earns its place by conveying the non-obvious scope of the endpoint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema covers return structure and the readOnlyHint covers safety, so those burdens are handled elsewhere. However, with 0% schema description coverage and five parameters, the description is too sparse to fully enable correct invocation, especially around the 'index' parameter and the exact distinction from pull request review comments.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to carry parameter meaning, but it does not explain any parameter. In particular, 'index' is ambiguous and could be mistaken for a comment index rather than an issue/PR number, and no mapping of owner/repo/index to the resource is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('comments on an issue or pull request'), correctly scoping the operation. It distinguishes this from comment creation/editing/deletion and, by using 'comments' rather than 'review comments', from the sibling list_pull_review_comments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving general comments on an issue or pull request, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over list_pull_review_comments or mention exclusions. An agent is left to infer the boundary between general issue comments and pull request review comments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that q is optional, but does not disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, or whether the search is case-insensitive. It adds some value but not rich behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One tight sentence with no filler. The key verb, resource, and search criterion are all front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple read-only search tool with an output schema, but incomplete: the required org parameter is only implied, not explicitly identified as the organization identifier, and page/limit semantics are absent. The description works for basic calls but leaves pagination details to inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains q ('by name') and implies org ('in an organization'), but page and limit are left completely unexplained. The schema titles alone are insufficient for an agent to understand pagination semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('teams in an organization'), and specifies the matching criterion ('by name'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling search tools like search_repos and search_users by the resource type being searched.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the usage context: use it when you need to find teams by name within an organization. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: UTF-8 content is returned as text while non-UTF-8 content is base64-encoded. This is an important operational detail that the schema and readOnly hint do not convey. It does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the encoding note is the only extra detail, which is essential. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only file retrieval tool, the description is nearly complete: it specifies the operation and the surprising encoding behavior, while the readOnlyHint covers the safety profile and the output schema covers the return shape. The main missing context is the semantics of ref, but it is optional and appears in the schema with a default.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it only says 'Read a file.' The owner, repo, and filepath fields are inferable from their names, but the optional ref parameter is left ambiguous—no mention that it selects a branch, tag, or commit SHA. This is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Read a file.' The second sentence adds a key behavioral detail about encoding. This clearly distinguishes get_file_content from sibling mutation tools like create_file, update_file, and delete_file, and from metadata tools like get_commit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the core use case evident—reading file content—so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_commit for commit data or update_file for modifications. The usage context is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 clearly indicates a state-changing action ('mark as read'), but it does not describe side effects, reversibility, or what happens to already-read threads. The absence of annotations makes this a moderate rather than strong disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. 'Mark all notification threads as read' conveys the action, object, and outcome efficiently without under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior succinctly. It could add an explicit link to get_notifications or clarify the 'all' scope, but these are minor gaps for such a simple imperative tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully describes the argument surface. The description adds no parameter detail because none is needed; this is the appropriate baseline for a no-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('mark') and a clear resource ('all notification threads') with an explicit outcome ('as read'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_notifications, which only retrieve notifications rather than changing their state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when the agent needs to clear the unread state of all notification threads. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it mention any limitations such as inability to mark a single thread as read.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get information' phrasing is consistent with a read-only operation. The description adds useful scope by clarifying that the result is bound to the authenticated caller, which matters for authorization awareness, while no destructive or unusual behavior is implied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler, repetition, or extraneous detail. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless read-only retrieval tool with an output schema available, the description is fully sufficient. It identifies the exact data scope (authenticated user), and no additional caveats, prerequisites, or alternative routing are necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantic burden for the description to carry. The baseline 4 applies because no parameter clarification is needed and the description does not mislead about inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific action ('Get information') and a specific resource ('the authenticated user'). The phrase 'authenticated' clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_user, which presumably targets a different user, so an agent can select it correctly without opening any schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description establishes clear context: this tool returns the caller's own user information. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_user or list alternative tools, but the 'authenticated user' phrasing makes the intended use obvious and effectively excludes use cases involving other users.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![forgejo-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/JakePeralta7/forgejo-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/JakePeralta7/forgejo-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![forgejo-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/JakePeralta7/forgejo-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/JakePeralta7/forgejo-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/JakePeralta7/forgejo-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server