mcp-github

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific GitHub resources and actions, but there is some overlap between search_issues and list_issues (both handle issues), and get_combined_status vs get_commit_statuses (both related to commit statuses). Descriptions help differentiate, but agents might occasionally misselect between these pairs.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout (e.g., create_issue, list_commits, search_code), with no mixing of conventions like camelCase or snake_case. This predictability makes it easy for agents to understand and use the toolset.
Tool Count2/5
With 45 tools, this server feels overly heavy for a GitHub integration, as many tools could be consolidated or omitted without losing functionality. A typical well-scoped server has 3-15 tools; this exceeds that range significantly, potentially overwhelming agents and increasing complexity.
Completeness5/5
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage of GitHub's domain, including CRUD operations for issues, pull requests, repositories, projects, releases, and packages, along with search, status, and file management. No obvious gaps exist; agents can handle full workflows without dead ends.
Average 2.9/5 across 45 of 45 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Get a package' without disclosing behavioral traits like read/write nature, authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or return format. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it's under-specified rather than concise, as it lacks necessary details for clarity and completeness, slightly reducing its effectiveness.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'Get' returns, how it behaves, or when to use it, making it insufficient for effective tool selection and invocation in this 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 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (org, package_type, package_name). The description adds no meaning beyond this, such as explaining package_type enum contexts or inter-parameter dependencies, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Get') and resource ('a package for an organization'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieve metadata, download, or list versions) or differentiate from siblings like 'get_repo_package' or 'get_user_package', leaving ambiguity about scope.
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. With siblings like 'get_repo_package' and 'get_user_package', the description lacks context on organizational vs. repository/user packages, and there are no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new gist' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or the response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 at just three words, front-loaded with the core action. There's zero waste or redundancy, making it efficient for quick scanning. Every word earns 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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and complex nested parameters (files object), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a gist is, the GitHub context, authentication needs, or behavioral traits. The schema covers parameters well, but overall context is lacking for proper agent use.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (description, public, files) thoroughly. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new gist' clearly states the action (create) and resource (gist), but it's vague about what a gist is in this context and doesn't distinguish from siblings like create_repository or create_issue. It's a basic statement of purpose without specificity.
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 is provided. There's no mention of prerequisites, when to choose this over similar tools like create_repository, or any context about gist creation versus other GitHub operations. The description offers no usage 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 states 'Get a package' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what data is returned (e.g., metadata, download link), error conditions, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with three required parameters and no 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Get a package for a user' is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity. Every word contributes to the core purpose without redundancy.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and three required parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like return values, error handling, or usage context, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's ability to invoke the tool correctly in complex scenarios.
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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions and an enum for 'package_type'. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a package for a user' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('package'), but it's vague about what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieve metadata, download, list versions) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_org_package' or 'get_repo_package', which target different scopes. It avoids tautology by not merely restating 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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_org_package' or 'list_user_packages'. The description implies usage for a specific user's package but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers, leaving the agent to infer based on parameter names 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. It mentions 'filtering options' but doesn't explain key behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, how pagination works (given 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. It's appropriately sized for a list operation, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. No wasted words or redundancy.
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 the complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, output format, or parameter meanings. For a list tool with filtering capabilities, more context is needed to help an agent use it correctly, especially with sibling tools like 'search_issues' that might overlap.
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 by explaining parameters. It only vaguely mentions 'filtering options' without detailing what those filters are (e.g., labels, state, sorting). The 9 parameters (including complex ones like arrays and enums) are not addressed, leaving their purposes unclear beyond what the bare schema 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 clearly states the action ('List issues') and resource ('in a GitHub repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also mentions 'filtering options' which hints at capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_issues' or 'get_issue', which would be needed for a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_issues' or 'get_issue'. It mentions 'filtering options' but doesn't specify what makes this tool distinct from other issue-related tools in the sibling list. No context about prerequisites or exclusions 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Add a comment' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, whether comments are editable/deletable, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a straightforward purpose, though the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.
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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It should explain authentication needs, error conditions, return values, and parameter meanings to compensate for the missing structured documentation. The current description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.
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 for all 4 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'owner', 'repo', 'issue_number', or 'body' represent or require. The description mentions 'existing issue' which hints at issue_number but doesn't clarify format or constraints. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema 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 action ('Add a comment') and target resource ('to an existing issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_issue' or 'create_issue', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_issue' (which might also allow commenting) or 'create_issue' (for initial issue creation with comments). There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for this specific commenting operation.
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 states the tool creates a new issue, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero wasted text, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 the complexity of a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, return values, and usage context, making it inadequate for the agent to fully understand how to invoke the tool 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%, meaning none of the 7 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond the tool's purpose, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. It doesn't explain what 'owner', 'repo', 'title', etc., represent or their expected formats.
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 ('Create a new issue') and the target resource ('in a GitHub repository'), providing specific verb+resource information. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_issue' or 'list_issues' beyond the basic action, missing explicit sibling 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_issue' for modifying existing issues or 'list_issues' for viewing them. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets details' but doesn't specify what details are returned (e.g., title, body, comments, labels), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or error handling for non-existent issues. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond the basic 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get details') and resource. There's no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying the essential purpose.
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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, authentication needs, and how it differs from sibling tools. For a read operation in a collaborative platform like GitHub, more context is needed to use it effectively without trial and error.
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 mentions 'specific issue in a GitHub repository', which implies parameters for identifying the repository and issue, but doesn't explain what 'owner', 'repo', or 'issue_number' represent (e.g., GitHub username/organization, repository name, integer issue ID). This adds minimal value beyond what the parameter names suggest.
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 ('Get details') and resource ('specific issue in a GitHub repository'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_issues' (which lists multiple) and 'update_issue' (which modifies), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the name 'get_issue'.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'get_issue' over 'list_issues' for single-issue retrieval, or how it differs from 'search_issues' for filtered queries. There's no context about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases beyond the basic action.
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 states the tool retrieves commit lists but lacks critical details: whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results (suggested by 'page' and 'perPage' parameters but not described), or what the output format is. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-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?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits like authentication or pagination, or output details. For a tool with multiple parameters and no structured support, this leaves the agent under-informed about how to use it effectively.
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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'branch' and 'GitHub repository', which loosely map to 'sha' and 'owner/repo', but it doesn't explain any parameters explicitly—such as what 'sha' represents (branch name, commit hash), or how 'page' and 'perPage' affect pagination. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 ('Get list of commits') and resource ('of a branch in a GitHub repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_commit_statuses' or 'search_code' that might also involve commits, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'list_issues' or 'search_code' for commit-related queries, leaving the agent to infer usage 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It mentions searching but doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, result format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a search tool with 4 parameters.
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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the core functionality effectively.
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 search tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or provide enough context about parameters and behavior for effective use.
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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about what 'q', 'order', 'page', or 'per_page' mean or how they should be used. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving parameters semantically unclear.
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 ('Search for code') and resource ('across GitHub repositories'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_issues' or 'search_repositories' beyond the 'code' focus, which prevents a perfect score.
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 like 'search_issues' or 'search_repositories'. The description lacks any context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'search' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is read-only (likely, but not stated), rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what the response format looks like. For a search tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.
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 search tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context about behavior, parameters, or results to help an agent use it effectively. The conciseness comes at the expense of necessary operational 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'q' represents (search query syntax), what 'order' and 'sort' control, or how pagination works with 'page' and 'per_page'. With 5 parameters completely undocumented in both schema and description, this is inadequate.
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 ('search for') and resources ('issues and pull requests') with scope ('across GitHub repositories'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_code', 'search_repositories', and 'search_users' by specifying the resource type, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_issues' which might be a more targeted listing 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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_issues' or other search tools. The description implies broad search capabilities but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters but not explained), what fields are returned, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks important 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?
The description is extremely concise at just 4 words, front-loading the essential information. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.
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 search tool with 5 parameters (including complex enums), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret parameters, or provide any context about GitHub's search API behavior. The minimal description is inadequate for the tool's complexity.
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 for 5 parameters (including 2 with enums), the description provides no parameter information whatsoever. It doesn't explain what 'q' represents (search query format), what the sort options mean, or how pagination works. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.
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 'search' and resource 'users on GitHub', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling search tools like 'search_code', 'search_issues', or 'search_repositories' beyond specifying the user resource.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this search is appropriate versus other user-related operations, nor does it reference the sibling search tools for different resource types.
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. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description fails to mention critical behaviors: required permissions (e.g., write access to the repository), whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., notifications to assignees), or error conditions (e.g., invalid issue numbers). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with 9 parameters.
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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update an existing issue') and specifies the context ('in a GitHub repository') efficiently. Every part of the description earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.
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 the complexity (9 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address permissions, error handling, return values, or parameter details, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively. For a mutation tool with many parameters, this minimal description is inadequate.
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%, meaning none of the 9 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no semantic information about parameters beyond what's implied by the tool name—it doesn't explain what 'owner', 'repo', 'issue_number', or any other fields represent, their formats (e.g., GitHub usernames for 'assignees'), or how they interact. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 action ('Update') and resource ('an existing issue in a GitHub repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_issue' (for creating new issues) and 'add_issue_comment' (for adding comments rather than modifying the issue itself). However, it doesn't specify what fields can be updated, which prevents a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing issue number), contrast with 'create_issue' for new issues, or specify scenarios like editing issue metadata versus adding comments (which would use 'add_issue_comment'). Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Create') but lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate branch names, error conditions, or rate limits. The description is minimal and misses key behavioral traits.
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, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns 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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (permissions, idempotency), output expectations, and error handling. For a creation tool in GitHub's API, this leaves significant 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though no extra value is added.
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 ('Create') and resource ('new branch in a GitHub repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'create_repository' or 'create_tag', but the specificity of 'branch' provides reasonable distinction. No tautology is present.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs, repository access), nor does it contrast with related tools like 'fork_repository' or 'create_tag'. Usage context is implied but not stated.
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 full burden. It states 'Create' implying a write/mutation operation, but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with a clarifying example. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover authentication needs, error handling, response format, or how it interacts with sibling tools like 'get_commit_statuses'. More context is needed for effective use.
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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'state' includes values like 'passed/failed' (which aligns with the enum). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Create a status') and resource ('for a commit'), with examples of status types ('build passed/failed, etc.'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_commit_statuses' (read vs. write) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'create_issue' or 'create_release'.
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 is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), when not to use it, or refer to related tools like 'get_commit_statuses' for checking existing statuses.
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 states the action but doesn't mention critical behavioral aspects like required permissions (e.g., write access to the repo), whether it's idempotent, how conflicts are handled, or what happens on failure. For a mutation 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 complex mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral traits (permissions, idempotency, error handling), usage context relative to siblings, or what the tool returns. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for other gaps.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the relationship between 'sha' and update operations). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('create or update') and resource ('a single file in a GitHub repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'push_files' or 'get_file_contents', which could handle similar file operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'push_files' (for multiple files) and 'get_file_contents' (for reading), there's no indication of when this single-file create/update operation is preferred, leaving usage context unclear.
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 the tool creates something but doesn't mention permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or the format of the response. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified, though it doesn't contradict any 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Create a new project') and resource ('for a repository'). There is zero waste or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.
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 the complexity (a mutation tool with 4 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, error handling, or response format, nor does it provide usage guidance. For a tool that creates resources in a collaborative environment like GitHub, this leaves significant gaps for an AI 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (owner, repo, name, body) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a repository context, which is redundant with the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, but no value is added.
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 ('Create a new project') and resource ('for a repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_project_card' or 'create_project_column' by focusing on the project itself rather than project components. However, it doesn't specify what kind of project (e.g., GitHub project board) or differentiate from 'list_projects', so it's not fully specific.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing repository access), when to choose 'create_project' over 'create_project_column' or 'create_project_card', or any constraints. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone, which is insufficient for clear 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' implies a mutation, but fails to mention permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a write operation with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling) and doesn't explain what the tool returns, leaving critical gaps for agent invocation.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('column_id' and 'note') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 ('Create a new card') and the resource ('in a project column'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_project' or 'create_project_column', which are related but distinct operations.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project and column), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'create_issue' or 'create_project', leaving the agent without context for selection.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't address permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple creation tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.
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 no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns the new column object), error conditions, or behavioral nuances. Given the complexity of a write operation and lack of structured metadata, more context is needed for the agent to use this tool effectively.
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 100%, with both parameters ('project_id' and 'name') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter context beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., format constraints, examples, or relationships between parameters). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new column for a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_project' or 'create_project_card', which would require specifying it's specifically for project columns rather than general project creation or card creation within columns.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'list_project_columns' for viewing existing columns. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate tool selection.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states the tool creates a pull request, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a PR object). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for its limited content.
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 complex mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the GitHub-specific context (e.g., PR lifecycle), what the tool returns, error handling, or how it fits with sibling tools. The agent would need to infer much from the parameter schema alone.
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 no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 8 parameters. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema adequately documents parameters, so the description doesn't need to compensate, but it also adds no extra value about parameter relationships or usage 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 ('Create a new pull request') and resource ('in a GitHub repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_issue' or 'create_branch' beyond the obvious resource difference, missing an opportunity to clarify its specific role in the GitHub workflow.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing branches), when not to use it (e.g., for direct commits), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'submit_pull_request_review' or 'create_issue'. This leaves the agent without contextual usage 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a review' implies a write operation that likely requires permissions and affects pull request status, but the description doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, side effects (e.g., notifications), or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Create a review for a pull request' is front-loaded and directly states the action. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
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 the complexity (7 parameters, mutation tool) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or return values, leaving gaps for the agent to infer. For a tool that creates reviews—a potentially impactful operation—more context is needed to ensure correct usage.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly (e.g., 'owner', 'event' with enum values). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, defaults, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.
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 'Create a review for a pull request' clearly states the verb ('create') and resource ('review for a pull request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'submit_pull_request_review' (which likely finalizes a review) and 'dismiss_pull_request_review' (which removes one). However, it doesn't specify what a 'review' entails (e.g., approval, comments, changes), which keeps it from a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing pull request access), differentiate from similar tools like 'add_issue_comment' or 'submit_pull_request_review', or specify contexts (e.g., code review workflows). Without any usage context, the agent must infer from the name and schema 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'create' implies a write operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this creates a public/private release by default, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description is minimal and lacks operational 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 perfectly concise at 7 words - a single sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and has no unnecessary elaboration.
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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, authentication requirements, or how it differs from related creation tools. The combination of mutation behavior and rich parameter set demands more contextual information than provided.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like how 'tag_name' relates to 'target_commitish' or the implications of 'draft' vs 'prerelease' settings.
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 ('create') and resource ('new release in a GitHub repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_tag' or 'upload_release_asset', which could create confusion about when to use each specific creation 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_tag' or 'upload_release_asset', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for creating releases. It simply states what the tool does without any usage context or decision criteria.
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 full burden. It states it creates a repository but lacks behavioral details: no mention of authentication requirements, rate limits, what happens on failure (e.g., if name exists), or the response format. 'Create' implies mutation, but without annotations, more context is needed for safe use.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without redundancy.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It lacks details on authentication, error handling, rate limits, and what the tool returns. For creating a repository with 4 parameters, more context is needed to ensure reliable use by 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the tool creates repositories. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameters like 'autoInit' or 'private'.
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 ('Create') and resource ('GitHub repository'), specifying it's for 'your account'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'fork_repository' (which creates a copy) and 'search_repositories' (which finds existing ones), but doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about scope.
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 is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication, permissions), when not to use it (e.g., for existing repositories), or direct alternatives like 'fork_repository'. The agent must infer usage from context 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions (e.g., push access to the repo), whether it overwrites existing tags, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it safely.
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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 no annotations and no output schema, this is a mutation tool with incomplete context. The description doesn't cover behavioral aspects (permissions, side effects) or return values, which are critical for safe invocation. It's inadequate for a tool that modifies repository state.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters (owner, repo, ref, sha). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying they're needed for tag creation. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Create') and resource ('new tag in a GitHub repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'create_release' or 'create_branch' which also create GitHub resources, but the specificity to tags is adequate.
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. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for lightweight tags versus annotated tags, or how it differs from 'create_release' which might also involve tagging. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.
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. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, it lacks details on permissions required, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to associated assets. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
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 the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or response format, which are critical for a deletion operation. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.
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 100%, so the input schema fully documents the parameters (owner, repo, release_id). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints, resulting in the baseline score of 3 for adequate but unenhanced 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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a release from a GitHub repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives like 'list_releases' or 'create_release' among the sibling tools, which would require explicit comparison for a score of 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context. With sibling tools like 'list_releases' and 'create_release' available, there's no indication of when deletion is appropriate or what conditions must be met, leaving usage unclear.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Dismiss' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to the review status, or any side effects. It lacks critical behavioral context 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
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 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'dismiss' means operationally, what permissions are needed, what the tool returns, or how it differs from related review management tools. Significant contextual gaps remain.
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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('dismiss') and target ('a pull request review'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'submit_pull_request_review' or explain what 'dismiss' means operationally (e.g., removing approval/rejection status).
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 like 'submit_pull_request_review' or other review management tools. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin/reviewer permissions) or contextual constraints for dismissing reviews.
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 but offers minimal insight. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how rate limits apply, or what the output format might be. The description fails to compensate for the lack of 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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by directly contributing to understanding the tool's purpose.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'combined status' means in practice, what data is returned, or any behavioral traits like error handling. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output documentation, this leaves significant 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (owner, repo, ref). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as clarifying what 'combined status' entails or how the ref parameter interacts with it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and target resource ('combined status for a commit'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_commit_statuses' which might retrieve individual statuses rather than a combined view, but the core functionality is well-defined.
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 like 'get_commit_statuses' or other status-related tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get statuses' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'statuses' specifically entail (e.g., CI checks, deployment states). This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose 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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'statuses' returns (e.g., array of objects with state, context, URL), how results are formatted, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output documentation, this leaves too much unspecified.
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 100%, with all three parameters (owner, repo, ref) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without providing extra 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 'Get statuses for a commit' clearly states the action (get) and resource (statuses for a commit), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_combined_status' which might retrieve aggregated status information, leaving some ambiguity about scope.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_combined_status' and 'list_commits' available, there's no indication of whether this tool is for detailed per-commit statuses, batch operations, or specific use 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic function without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not explicit), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with large files/directories. The description adds minimal value beyond the obvious 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable with zero waste.
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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context about authentication, rate limits, return format (especially given the encoded parameter), error handling, and how it differs from sibling tools. The description alone is insufficient for safe and effective use.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain path formatting conventions or when to use branch vs default). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Get the contents') and resource ('file or directory from a GitHub repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like get_issue or get_gist by specifying file/directory content retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like search_code.
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), constraints (e.g., file size limits), or when to choose other tools like search_code for broader queries or get_gist for gist-specific content.
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 'Get the diff' but doesn't specify what the diff includes (e.g., file changes, patch format), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the diff output looks like (e.g., raw patch text, structured data), potential side effects, or error handling. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured behavioral hints, more context is needed.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'owner', 'repo', and 'pull_number'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints (e.g., pull_number must be an integer). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Get the diff for a pull request' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('diff for a pull request'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'get_pull_request' or 'list_pull_requests', which might also retrieve pull request data but not specifically the diff.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid pull request number) or compare it to other tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'get_issue' for issue details vs. this for pull request diffs).
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 the action ('Get') but does not describe what 'Get' entails—e.g., whether it downloads the asset file, returns metadata, requires authentication, has rate limits, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence ('Get a release asset from a GitHub repository') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately concise and well-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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters and no behavioral context. It does not explain what is returned (e.g., file content vs. metadata), authentication needs, or error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters (owner, repo, asset_id). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining where to find asset IDs or format requirements. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a release asset from a GitHub repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It does not distinguish from siblings like 'upload_release_asset' or 'list_releases', but the verb 'Get' is specific enough to imply retrieval rather than creation or listing.
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. For example, it does not mention that 'list_releases' might be needed first to find asset IDs, or clarify that this is for downloading assets rather than metadata. The description offers no context about prerequisites 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 states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or the return format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with repository packages.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing 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?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'Get' entails (e.g., returns package metadata, downloads files), authentication needs, or how it differs from sibling package tools. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all four required parameters (owner, repo, package_type, package_name) with details like enum values for package_type. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Get') and resource ('a package for a repository'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_org_package' or 'get_user_package', which also retrieve packages but from different scopes.
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 like 'get_org_package' or 'get_user_package'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing repository access, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it lists gists 'for the authenticated user,' implying authentication is required, but doesn't disclose other behaviors like pagination (implied by parameters), rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a list operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and scope.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a list tool with pagination parameters. It lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, return format (e.g., list of gist objects), or error cases. The high schema coverage helps with inputs, but overall context is insufficient for safe agent invocation.
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 100%, with clear descriptions for 'since' (time filter), 'per_page' (pagination limit), and 'page' (pagination offset). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating 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 'List gists for the authenticated user' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('gists'), with the scope 'for the authenticated user' distinguishing it from potential public listing tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_gist' (which retrieves a specific gist), though the 'list' vs 'get' naming helps.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_gist' (for single gists) or 'search_code' (which might find gists), nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., authentication requirements) or exclusions (e.g., not for public gists).
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 states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by 'per_page' and 'page' parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a list operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns 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?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the filtering behavior (package_type and visibility parameters), pagination details, authentication requirements, or what the return data looks like. For a list operation with multiple filtering options and no structured output documentation, more context is needed.
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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 5 parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
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 'List packages for an organization' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('packages for an organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_repo_packages' and 'list_user_packages' by specifying organization scope, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The description is specific but lacks explicit sibling 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_repo_packages' or 'list_user_packages'. It mentions the organization scope but doesn't explain when organization-level listing is preferred over repository or user-level listing. No exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual usage hints are 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like pagination details (implied by parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with parameters.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple list tool, earning its place without unnecessary elaboration.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, pagination behavior, or any error conditions. For a list tool with pagination parameters, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters (project_id, per_page, page). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('List') and resource ('columns for a project'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_projects' or 'list_issues', which follow a similar pattern, so it misses full sibling distinction.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'List projects' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by 'per_page' and 'page' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields). The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context for a tool with multiple parameters.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. No extraneous information is included, and it directly conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy.
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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on output format, pagination behavior, error handling, and when to use versus siblings. For a list operation with filtering and pagination, more context is needed to guide effective use by an AI 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters (owner, repo, state, per_page, page) with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List projects for a repository' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('projects'), specifying the scope ('for a repository'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_project' or 'list_project_columns' by focusing on listing rather than creating or listing columns. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'list_issues'), which slightly reduces specificity.
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for filtering by state, or comparisons to similar tools like 'list_project_columns' or 'create_project'. Usage is implied by the name and parameters but not explicitly stated.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List releases') but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it requires authentication, how results are ordered, if it's paginated (implied by parameters but not stated), what the output format is, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and list functionality. It doesn't cover authentication needs, output format, pagination behavior, error handling, or rate limits. For a GitHub API tool with siblings that include mutations (e.g., 'create_release'), more context is needed to ensure safe and effective use.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (owner, repo, per_page, page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, default values, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('releases for a GitHub repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_release_asset' or 'create_release' by focusing on listing rather than retrieving specific assets or creating releases. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'list_issues', 'list_commits') 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), compare to similar tools like 'list_commits' or 'list_issues', or specify use cases (e.g., checking release history, finding latest version). This leaves the agent to infer 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.
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 but offers minimal information. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it's paginated (though parameters suggest it), rate limits, or what the output format looks like. 'List' implies a read operation, but critical behavioral details are missing for a tool with 5 parameters.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a straightforward listing tool. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not stated), authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool that likely returns structured package data, more context is needed to help the agent use it effectively.
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 description coverage is 100%, providing clear documentation for all 5 parameters including their types, descriptions, and enum values for 'package_type'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting. No compensation is needed given the high coverage.
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 ('List') and resource ('packages for a repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_repo_package' (singular) and 'list_org_packages'/'list_user_packages' (different scopes), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'get_repo_package' (for a single package) or 'list_org_packages'/'list_user_packages' (for different scopes), nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like pagination handling (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic 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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be more informative. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, pagination behavior, and usage context. For a tool with 5 parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more guidance to be fully helpful.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a user context for 'username'. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract.
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 'List packages for a user' clearly states the action (list) and resource (packages) with a scope (for a user). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_org_packages' and 'list_repo_packages' by specifying user context, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific but could be more detailed about what 'packages' entails.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_org_packages' or 'list_repo_packages' for different scopes, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Search for GitHub repositories' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the schema, or what the response format looks like (no output schema). For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a straightforward search tool.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling search tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't help an agent understand when to choose this over other search tools, what the results look like, or important behavioral constraints like authentication or rate limits. For a search tool in this context, more guidance is needed.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (query, page, perPage) with their types, descriptions, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ('Search') and resource ('GitHub repositories'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling search tools like search_code, search_issues, and search_users, which all search GitHub but target different resources.
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. The description doesn't mention sibling search tools (search_code, search_issues, search_users) or clarify that this specifically searches repositories rather than code, issues, or users. There's no context about prerequisites or typical use 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions the three event types but doesn't disclose that this is a mutation operation (submitting implies writing), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.
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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the tool's effect (e.g., that it finalizes a review), required permissions, error conditions, or return values. The 100% schema coverage helps but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral 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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'event' has three possible values (already in the schema enum). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.
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 ('submit') and resource ('pull request review'), specifying the three possible actions (approve, request changes, or comment). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'create_pull_request_review' (which creates rather than submits) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from more distant siblings like 'dismiss_pull_request_review'.
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing review ID from 'create_pull_request_review'), nor does it clarify when to choose this over other review-related tools like 'dismiss_pull_request_review'.
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 full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states the action ('upload') which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, file size constraints, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and target, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns 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?
For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after upload (e.g., returns asset ID?), error conditions, or integration with sibling tools like 'get_release_asset'. The agent lacks critical context for safe and effective use.
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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format expectations for 'content' beyond base64, or relationships between parameters). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('upload') and target ('asset to a GitHub release'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_release' or 'get_release_asset' by focusing on asset upload specifically. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'push_files' or 'create_or_update_file' which might handle similar content operations.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing release), nor does it compare to sibling tools like 'create_release' (which creates releases) or 'get_release_asset' (which retrieves assets). The agent must infer usage from the tool 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get a specific gist,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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, efficient sentence ('Get a specific gist') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for its simplicity.
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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on behavior, usage, or output. Without annotations or an output schema, more detail on response format or error handling would improve completeness, but it's not entirely inadequate for such a simple tool.
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 100%, with the parameter 'gist_id' fully documented in the schema as 'The ID of the gist.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain parameter usage, format, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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 'Get a specific gist' clearly states the action (get) and resource (gist), with 'specific' implying retrieval by identifier. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_gists' by focusing on a single item rather than listing multiple. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from other get_* tools like 'get_issue' or 'get_file_contents' beyond the resource 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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for retrieving a single gist by ID, but it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid gist_id), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'list_gists' for browsing or 'get_file_contents' for file data. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
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. It mentions 'Check' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits on this call itself, response format, or whether it's safe to use frequently. This leaves key operational details unclear.
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, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose without any fluff or redundancy.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the rate limit status includes (e.g., remaining calls, reset time), how it's returned, or any error conditions. For a tool that likely returns structured data about API limits, this is insufficient.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a high baseline score for not adding unnecessary information.
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 ('Check') and resource ('current rate limit status'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, as none appear to be rate-limit related, so this is adequate but not exceptional.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context. It's a standalone statement without any usage context, which is a significant gap for effective tool selection.
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 full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether it's idempotent, what happens if the repository already exists forked, or what the response includes. For a mutation 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters and no complex behavioral nuances to explain.
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 no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, permissions needed, or how it differs from similar repository operations. Given the complexity of GitHub API operations, more context would be helpful.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the default behavior for the 'organization' parameter, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 specific action ('Fork') and resource ('GitHub repository'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on repository forking rather than other GitHub operations like creating issues, branches, or releases. It's precise and 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_repository' or other repository-related tools. It mentions the default behavior (forking to personal account) but doesn't explain scenarios where forking is preferred over cloning or creating new repositories.
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 full burden but only states the basic operation. It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether it overwrites existing files, error handling for invalid paths, or what happens on success/failure. 'Push' implies a write operation, but details are missing.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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 write operation with 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about authentication, error handling, response format, and how it differs from similar tools. The context signals indicate complexity that isn't addressed.
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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format of 'files' array, encoding of 'content'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 specific action ('push multiple files'), resource ('to a GitHub repository'), and scope ('in a single commit'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_or_update_file' (which handles single files) by emphasizing batch 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 description implies usage for batch file uploads to GitHub, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'create_or_update_file' for single files or other sibling tools. No guidance on prerequisites, error conditions, or exclusions is provided.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/MissionSquad/mcp-github'

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