Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CONTRI

CONTRI

by alphasafal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Will a maintainer reply?

team_responsiveness
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether maintainers reply to outside PRs and issues by retrieving median first-response time, pending responders, and maintainer roster for a GitHub repository before assessing issue claims.

Instructions

Will a maintainer reply? Median first team reply to outside PRs and issues, who is still waiting, and the maintainer roster. Call once per repository before check_issue: it improves claim detection. 2–3 requests signed in, up to ~35 anonymous.

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": {
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "team_responsiveness"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesowner/name or a github.com URL
forceNoBypass the cache (costs requests)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
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 does add genuine behavioral value beyond them: an explicit request-cost budget ('2–3 requests signed in, up to ~35 anonymous'), which tells the agent this is a metered call. It says nothing about cache lifetime or how stale 'still waiting' data can be, which matters for a cached tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the question the tool answers, then the return contents, then the call-ordering directive and cost. No filler and nothing buried – the most actionable line (call before check_issue) is prominent.

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 usefully enumerates the three return components, which is exactly the right compensation. But for a two-param read tool whose output is undocumented structurally, it leaves the shape of 'who is still waiting' and 'maintainer roster' unspecified (fields? list? counts?), so an agent cannot anticipate what it will parse.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both params documented ('owner/name or a github.com URL' and 'Bypass the cache (costs requests)'), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description's only added framing is the once-per-repository cadence, which is a usage constraint rather than parameter semantics; baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific question ('Will a maintainer reply?') and then enumerates exactly what is returned: median first team reply to outside PRs and issues, who is still waiting, and the maintainer roster. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from repo_health or contribution_brief, though it never uses a clean verb+resource phrasing, so an agent must infer 'fetch responsiveness metrics'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives an explicit ordering rule – 'Call once per repository before check_issue' – plus the rationale ('it improves claim detection'), and 'once per repository' implicitly discourages repeated calls. It does not say when to skip it or which sibling to prefer for related questions (e.g. repo_health), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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