Retrieve all native GitHub Star Lists created by the authenticated user, including their current items and IDs. Use this to inspect and manage your starred repository lists.
Get all native GitHub Star Lists created by the authenticated user along with their current items and IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| refresh | No | Bypass cache and query GitHub GraphQL live. |
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 the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says 'Get all native GitHub Star Lists', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose caching behavior, the meaning of 'current', rate limits, authentication requirements, or response details.
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, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the resource being retrieved and adds clarifying scope ('created by the authenticated user') and content ('current items and IDs') efficiently.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no required parameters, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not clarify the refresh/caching behavior, output shape, or any behavioral caveats, which is more important because there is no output schema and no annotations.
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% for the single boolean 'refresh' parameter, so the schema fully documents it. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline is appropriate given full schema coverage.
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 identifies the tool as a getter for all native GitHub Star Lists belonging to the authenticated user, including items and IDs. It is specific about the resource and scope, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like github_list_starred or github_create_user_list.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer this over github_list_starred or github_create_user_list, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.