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. It mentions what data is retrieved but does not cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. For a tool interacting with an external API like GitHub, 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 ('Get repository metadata') and lists key data points. There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., authentication, rate limits) and does not specify the return format or structure, which could be important for an agent to process the results correctly. This makes it minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate here since the tool likely operates without inputs (e.g., fetching metadata for a default or context-specific repository). This aligns with the schema, so a high score is warranted, though not perfect as it could hint at implicit context needs.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('repository metadata'), and lists key data points (stars, forks, language, settings). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_list_branches' or 'github_get_issue', which might also retrieve repository-related information, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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, such as other GitHub-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'github_list_issues' or 'github_get_pr'). It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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