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 'optional filters' but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits: it doesn't specify that this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'List'), doesn't mention pagination behavior (though parameters exist), doesn't describe rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. The description adds minimal value 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.

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. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the core action from the filtering capability.

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 7 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context about output format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or how it integrates with sibling tools. Without annotations, more behavioral disclosure would be helpful for an agent to use it effectively.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no specific parameter information beyond mentioning 'optional filters' generically. It doesn't explain parameter relationships, default behaviors, or usage examples. 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.

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 ('CI/CD pipelines'), with additional clarification that these are 'workflow runs in GitHub'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_pipeline' (singular) and 'list_pipeline_jobs' (jobs within pipelines). However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from other list tools like 'list_issues' or '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.

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

The description implies usage context through 'with optional filters', suggesting this tool is for retrieving pipelines with filtering capabilities. It doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_pipeline' (for a single pipeline) or 'list_pipeline_jobs' (for jobs within a pipeline), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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