Gitopia MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It compensates well by describing the return structure (JSON array with address, weight, metadata, added_at) since no output schema exists. However, it omits explicit read-only declaration (implied but not stated), error behaviors, or permission requirements that would be expected for a complete behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: purpose (sentence 1), return format and parameter logic (sentence 2), optional parameter and cross-references (sentence 3). Every clause provides unique value not redundant with structured fields.

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 3 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no output schema or annotations, the description is nearly complete. It effectively describes return values to compensate for missing output schema and references relevant siblings. Minor gap: lacks explicit contrast with dao_update_members to clarify this is read-only listing versus member modification.

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?

While schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), the description adds crucial semantic context: clarifying that 'dao' and 'group_id' are alternatives ('OR' relationship) rather than jointly required, and confirming the 'limit' default value of 100. This goes beyond the raw schema definitions.

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 tool 'see[s] who belongs to a DAO and their voting weights' — specific verb (see/list), specific resource (DAO members), and specific attributes (voting weights). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like dao_list_proposals (which lists proposals, not members) and create_dao by referencing them in 'See also'.

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 need to see who belongs to a DAO') and references siblings (dao_list_proposals, create_dao). Clarifies the critical OR relationship between 'dao' and 'group_id' parameters. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use (e.g., contrasting with dao_update_members for modifications) which prevents a 5.

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