Git MCP Server

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 'to see results' but doesn't disclose key behaviors: it's a read-only list operation (implied by 'List'), requires authentication, likely has pagination (hinted by page/per_page params but not explained), or rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 action. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning filtering or pagination, but it avoids waste and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

For a list tool with 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks context on usage, behavioral details, or output format. Given the schema handles parameters well, the description meets a basic threshold but leaves gaps in guidance and transparency.

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%, providing full parameter documentation. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., doesn't clarify repo format differences or default behaviors). 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.

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 ('all jobs in a CI/CD pipeline'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_pipelines' by focusing on jobs within a pipeline, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_job_log' which retrieves logs for a specific job.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing a pipeline ID first (available via 'list_pipelines'), nor does it differentiate from 'get_job_log' for detailed job information. The description only states the basic function without context.

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