Miyabi MCP Bundle

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering by status but fails to describe key behaviors such as pagination handling (implied by 'per_page' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, error handling). This is inadequate for a tool with potential API constraints.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every sentence contributes directly to the tool's purpose and a basic usage hint, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with three parameters and potential behavioral complexities (e.g., API interactions, pagination). It lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error responses, and output structure, which are critical for an AI agent to use the tool effectively in a GitHub context.

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 three parameters. The description adds marginal value by implying the 'status' parameter can filter for failures, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema already specifies. This meets the baseline for high 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 states the verb ('List') and resource ('recent workflow runs'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling GitHub tools like 'github_list_workflows' or 'github_list_prs', which would require mentioning it's specifically for runs/executions of workflows rather than workflow definitions or other GitHub entities.

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 minimal guidance with 'Filter by status to find failures,' which implies a use case but doesn't offer explicit when-to-use instructions, alternatives, or exclusions. No comparison to sibling tools or prerequisites is mentioned, leaving the agent with little context for tool selection.

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