Code Review MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get details' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what specific details are returned (e.g., title, status, comments). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving PR details), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, potential authentication needs, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a read operation with no structured output documentation, more context is needed to be complete.

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%, with both parameters ('repoId' and 'prId') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these parameters identify a specific pull request, which is already evident from the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'details of a specific pull request', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_get_pr_diff' or 'github_list_prs', which would require mentioning it retrieves metadata rather than diff content or multiple PRs.

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. It doesn't mention that this is for retrieving metadata of a single PR (vs. 'github_list_prs' for multiple PRs or 'github_get_pr_diff' for diff content), nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or repository access.

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