Gitopia MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It compensates by disclosing the return structure ('JSON array of proposal objects with id, title...') and pagination behavior ('default 50'). It could achieve a 5 by explicitly noting this is read-only or describing sorting order, but the return value documentation is excellent.

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 efficiently structured: trigger condition, return format, required params (with OR logic), optional param, and cross-references. Every sentence delivers unique information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully documents the return object's fields. Combined with complete parameter coverage and sibling references, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without external 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the logical OR relationship between 'dao' and 'group_policy_address' ('Provide... OR'), which is not explicit in the schema alone, and reinforcing the default value for 'limit'.

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 specific action ('review pending or past governance proposals') and target resource (DAO proposals). It distinguishes itself from siblings 'dao_get_proposal' (single item retrieval) and 'dao_vote' (action tool) via the 'See also' reference, making selection unambiguous.

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 you need to review pending or past governance proposals') and references direct alternatives ('See also: dao_get_proposal, dao_vote'). It also clarifies the mutual exclusivity constraint between 'dao' and 'group_policy_address' parameters ('Provide... OR').

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