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 behavioral traits: this is an on-chain transaction that requires signing and broadcasting, and it has a strict precondition (proposal must have passed). Missing minor details like failure modes or return values, but covers the essential safety-critical 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?

Five sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with usage condition ('Use this when...'), followed by mechanism ('Signs and broadcasts...'), requirements ('Requires...'), validation ('must have passed'), and references. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter blockchain execution tool with no output schema, the description provides appropriate context: on-chain nature, signing requirement, prerequisite state, and workflow integration via sibling references. Minor gap in not describing return values, but adequate for safe invocation.

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 has 100% coverage with clear parameter description. The description adds valuable semantic constraint beyond the schema: it clarifies that the proposal_id must reference a proposal that has already passed (tally succeeded), which is crucial business logic not evident from the integer type alone.

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?

Description clearly states the tool 'executed on-chain' and 'Signs and broadcasts an on-chain transaction' for proposals that have passed. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like dao_vote (voting phase) and dao_submit_proposal (submission phase) by specifying the post-passage execution context.

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 when to use: 'when a proposal has passed and needs to be executed on-chain.' Includes prerequisite validation ('The proposal must have passed') and references related workflow tools ('See also: dao_get_proposal, dao_vote'), providing clear navigation of the DAO lifecycle.

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