Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CONTRI

CONTRI

by alphasafal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Contribution brief

contribution_brief
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a source-linked brief for a GitHub issue with project docs, contribution rules, and templates so agents can plan, explain, or review the work before starting.

Instructions

A source-linked brief for one issue plus links to the project's README, contributing guide, code of conduct and templates. One request more than check_issue.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "issue": "<issue>"
    },
    "name": "contribution_brief"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskNoplan (default), explain, or review (self-review checklist)
forceNoBypass the cache (costs requests)
issueYeshttps://github.com/owner/name/issues/123 or owner/name#123

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact — relative request cost versus check_issue — but stays silent about the caching behavior that the 'force' parameter implies, and doesn't explain how sources are linked or how fresh the data is.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with no filler, front-loading what the tool returns before the cost comparison. It is lean to the point that some needed detail (task modes, brief structure) is absent, but no sentence is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description should carry more of the return-shape burden: it names the bundled documents but never describes how the brief itself is structured or how the plan/explain/review modes differ. For a three-parameter read tool this is adequate but leaves a notable gap for output interpretation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents issue formats, the plan/explain/review enum and the cache-bypass flag. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the baseline-3 case where structured fields do the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

It states the resource concretely — a source-linked brief for a single issue, plus links to README, contributing guide, code of conduct and templates — so the returned content is predictable. It also differentiates itself from check_issue by cost ('one request more'), though it doesn't explicitly state what check_issue returns, so functional differentiation is only partial.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the cost comparison with check_issue suggests using this one when you need onboarding docs alongside the issue, but there is no explicit 'use when / don't use when' rule. An agent must infer the tradeoff against check_issue rather than being told.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools