Miyabi MCP Bundle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the merge methods, it fails to describe critical behaviors such as required permissions (e.g., write access to the repository), side effects (e.g., closing the PR, creating a merge commit), error conditions (e.g., merge conflicts, required status checks), or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 ('Merge a PR') and specifies the methods without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise 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 the complexity of a mutation tool like merging a PR, the description is insufficient. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral details, it lacks information on permissions, side effects, error handling, and return values. The schema covers parameters well, but the overall context for safe and effective use is incomplete, especially for an operation that can alter repository state.

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%, with clear documentation for both parameters ('pull_number' and 'merge_method'), including an enum for the latter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the three merge methods, but it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or additional context like what happens if 'merge_method' is omitted. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 action ('Merge a PR') and specifies the available methods ('merge, squash, or rebase'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'github_submit_review' or 'github_update_issue' that might also interact with pull requests, though those appear to serve different functions based on their names.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., PR must be in a mergeable state), or exclusions (e.g., cannot merge if conflicts exist). It merely states what the tool does without contextual usage information, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name and parameters alone.

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