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 states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but fails to mention critical details like required permissions (e.g., write access to the repository), whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields (e.g., if only title is provided, does body remain unchanged?). The mention of closing issues adds some context, but overall behavioral traits are inadequately covered for a mutation tool.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that directly state the tool's function and a key use case. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing, making it easy to parse 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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, side effects), response format, error handling, and how it fits among siblings. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for the missing context needed for safe and effective use, especially for an update operation in a collaborative environment like GitHub.

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 already documents all parameters (issue_number, title, body, state) with clear descriptions. The description adds marginal value by listing the updatable fields ('title, body, state, or assignees') and noting the state can be used to close issues, but this mostly reiterates schema info without deeper semantics like format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('issue title, body, state, or assignees'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also mentions closing issues as a specific use case. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like github_create_issue or github_get_issue, though the 'update' verb inherently suggests modification of existing issues rather than creation or retrieval.

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 on when to use this tool, only hinting at its purpose with 'Close issues by setting state.' It lacks explicit context for when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., github_add_comment for comments, github_create_issue for new issues), prerequisites like authentication, or any 'when-not' scenarios. No sibling tool comparisons are made, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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