Assign a starred repository to GitHub Star Lists to organize it into custom categories, updating existing list membership as needed.
Assign or update a repository's membership in native GitHub Star Lists (requires token with 'user' scope).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list_ids | Yes | Array of UserList IDs. | |
| repo_node_id | Yes | The GraphQL node ID of the repository. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Assign or update', implying a mutation, but does not describe side effects such as whether existing assignments are overwritten or additive, what happens if the repo or list does not exist, or if the operation is idempotent. The scope requirement is a prerequisite, not a behavioral trait. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a write operation.
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, concise sentence that immediately states the action and resource. There is no redundant or filler content. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 tool's low complexity (only 2 required parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but misses behavioral details like failure modes, idempotency, or the effect on existing list memberships. An agent could call the tool, but lacks insight into expected outcomes and error conditions. It meets the minimum viable level but no more.
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% — both parameters (repo_node_id and list_ids) have descriptive entries. The description itself adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, a high-coverage schema baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not elevate it.
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 tool's action: 'Assign or update a repository's membership in native GitHub Star Lists'. It specifies the resource (repository membership) and the target (Star Lists), which distinguishes it from siblings like github_create_user_list or github_get_user_lists. The verb 'assign or update' makes the operation unambiguous.
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 provides one usage condition: 'requires token with 'user' scope', which is a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., creating lists or retrieving lists), nor does it mention scenarios where it should not be used. The purpose is clear enough that an agent could infer usage, but explicit routing is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.