Gitopia MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully discloses critical blockchain behavior ('Signs and broadcasts an on-chain transaction'), return value ('Returns the new DAO ID'), and default values for optional parameters. Does not mention authentication requirements or error handling.

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?

Efficiently structured with clear front-loading ('Use this when...'). Information density is high with no redundant sentences. Optional parameters are listed concisely with defaults inline.

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 complex blockchain mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value (DAO ID) and transaction nature, but the omission of the 'config' parameter (which controls proposal requirements) leaves a significant gap in required parameter documentation.

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 coverage, the description must compensate. It adds valuable semantic meaning for most parameters (e.g., voting_period default is '2' hours, percentage '0.50' = 50%, members defaults to creator with weight 1). However, it completely omits the 'config' parameter (an object with 4 boolean fields for governance settings) and does not explain the structure of 'members' array items.

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?

Clear specific verb ('create') and resource ('DAO') with scope ('for collaborative development'). The 'See also: set_active_dao' explicitly distinguishes this creation tool from its sibling activation tool.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this when you need to create a new DAO' and references sibling tool 'set_active_dao' for context. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance (e.g., when to use dao_exec instead), but provides clear entry point context.

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