gitchanger_mcp_get

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: it never says the token is masked by default (that fact lives only in the schema's unmask field), that the operation is side-effect-free, or that a credential/secret is being returned. For a tool that surfaces authentication material, this is a notable gap, though 'Retrieve' does correctly signal a read rather than a mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a two-parameter lookup tool. It loses a point only because the trailing clause about 'active MCP client configuration' is vague rather than informative.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with fully documented schema, this covers the essentials, and the absence of an output schema is partly mitigated by naming the returned artifact (the token). It would be stronger if it clarified the masked-by-default return shape and what happens when no token is configured for the profile.

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%, and both parameters already document their semantics ('Return full unmasked token', 'Profile ID (uses active profile if omitted)'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's phrase 'for a profile or active MCP client configuration' loosely corroborates the fallback behavior but adds no format or precedence detail beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('configured GitHub MCP token'), which distinguishes it from siblings like gitchanger_mcp_set, gitchanger_mcp_status, and gitchanger_mcp_sync. The scope phrase 'for a profile or active MCP client configuration' adds a second dimension, though 'MCP client configuration' is never explained and remains ambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of gitchanger_mcp_status or gitchanger_mcp_test, nor when to set unmask. The reader must infer that this is the read counterpart to gitchanger_mcp_set from the name alone. No prerequisites or cautions are stated.

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