Verify GitHub integration for a solution by checking its repository URL and latest commit status.
Check if a solution has a GitHub repo, its URL, and the latest commit. Use this to verify GitHub integration is working for a solution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| solution_id | Yes | The solution ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.52Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full responsibility. The 'check' verb implies read-only, and it specifies the data returned (URL, latest commit), but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects or address failure modes.
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?
Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple status tool, it includes purpose, output details, and use case. It lacks error behavior details, but overall adequate for the tool's complexity.
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 covers solution_id at 100% with a basic description; the description adds no new detail about parameter format or constraints. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'check' and clearly identifies the resource (solution's GitHub repo) and outputs (URL, latest commit). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like diff, push, or log.
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?
Provides explicit use case: 'verify GitHub integration is working for a solution.' However, it does not mention when not to use or list alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.