Git MCP Server

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 retrieves details but doesn't specify what those details include (e.g., status, duration, artifacts), whether it's a read-only operation, error handling for invalid IDs, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get details of a specific CI/CD pipeline') and adds clarifying context ('workflow run in GitHub'). There is no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (a retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, error conditions, or how it integrates with siblings like 'list_pipeline_jobs'. For a tool without structured output, more context on return values is needed to be fully helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('repo' and 'pipeline_id'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameters, but the description doesn't enhance understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get details') and resource ('specific CI/CD pipeline'), with parenthetical clarification that this refers to 'workflow run in GitHub'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_pipelines' by focusing on a single pipeline, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling. The purpose is specific but could be slightly more precise about what 'details' include.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for a specific pipeline ID, but it doesn't mention when to choose this over 'list_pipelines' or 'list_pipeline_jobs', nor does it discuss prerequisites like authentication or repository access. Usage is inferred 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.