Gitopia MCP Server

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

Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden. It successfully discloses critical behavioral traits: 'Signs and broadcasts an on-chain transaction' clarifies the mutation/side-effect nature, and 'Returns the bounty ID' compensates for the missing output schema. Missing details on failure modes or irreversibility prevent a 5.

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?

Six distinct information units (purpose, on-chain nature, return value, required params, optional param, cross-references) arranged logically without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place; technical details (param structures) are included but don't obscure the primary purpose.

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 blockchain complexity, 5 parameters, and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is remarkably complete—covering purpose, side effects, return values, and all parameter formats. Minor gaps remain regarding authorization requirements and error handling.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage at the top level, the description compensates effectively by enumerating all required parameters and detailing the complex 'amount' array structure ('array of {denom, amount} coins, amount as string') and 'expiry' format ('unix timestamp'). Minor gap: doesn't clarify 'owner' semantics (address vs username).

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 opens with a specific use-case ('incentivize work on an issue by attaching a reward') that clearly identifies the verb (incentivize/attach), resource (reward/bounty), and scope. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing 'update_bounty' and 'list_bounties' explicitly.

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 'when to use' ('Use this when you want to incentivize work...') and lists sibling tools for alternatives ('See also: list_bounties...'). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or prerequisites (e.g., needing sufficient token balance), but the blockchain context implies usage constraints.

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