Test a GitHub token or active profile token to verify validity, account username, and OAuth scopes against the GitHub API.
Test and verify GitHub token validity, account username, and OAuth scopes against GitHub API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | Custom token string to test directly. | |
| profile | No | Profile ID whose token to test (uses active token if omitted). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the check goes out to the GitHub API (an external authenticated call) and that it only verifies rather than modifies, but it says nothing about rate limiting, network failure behavior, or what happens when the token is invalid or expired.
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; the checked attributes are listed compactly. It is efficient, though the enumeration could have been split so the target (GitHub API) leads rather than trails.
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-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers what the tool inspects (validity, username, scopes), which effectively conveys what the caller gets back. The remaining gap is failure/edge-case behavior, which is minor at this 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 description coverage is 100%, and the two parameters (token, profile) are already fully documented in the schema, including the fallback to the active token. The description adds no additional meaning about precedence between the two or formatting of the token, so the baseline of 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?
The description states a specific verb+resource pair ('Test and verify GitHub token validity, account username, and OAuth scopes against GitHub API') and enumerates exactly what is checked, so an agent knows it is a credential diagnostic rather than a credential-mutating tool. It does not explicitly name the closest sibling, gitchanger_test_ssh, which handles the analogous SSH case.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the diagnostic intent is only implied by the verbs 'test and verify'. Nothing routes the agent away from gitchanger_test_ssh or gitchanger_status, both of which sit adjacent in the sibling list and could plausibly be confused with a credential check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.