Code MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool returns (statistics) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires git repository access, has rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 directly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with no wasted words, 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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or return values. For a tool that likely interacts with git and provides statistical data, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 5 parameters with descriptions. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, defaults, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Get diff statistics (files changed, lines added/removed)'. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('diff statistics') with concrete metrics. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'git_diff', 'enhanced_git_diff', or 'compare_commits' which might provide similar functionality.

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. With many sibling tools related to git operations and diffs (e.g., 'git_diff', 'compare_commits', 'analyze_file_differences'), there's no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for this tool.

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