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 and effectively discloses critical behavioral traits: it 'Signs and broadcasts an on-chain transaction' (mutation/side-effect), requires group admin privileges (authorization), and explains the removal mechanic (weight='0'). Could improve by mentioning reversibility or confirmation requirements.

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?

Four sentences with zero waste: purpose, side-effects, parameter mechanics, and auth/siblings. Information is front-loaded and dense. Every clause earns its place by adding unique value not present in 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers authorization, side effects, and parameter semantics. Absence of return value documentation is acceptable given no output schema exists, though mentioning transaction hash or success indicators would strengthen it further.

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 baseline 3. The description adds significant value by clarifying the XOR relationship between 'dao' and 'group_id' ('Provide... OR'), detailing the member_updates array structure, and reiterating the weight=0 removal mechanic in the usage context.

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 explicitly states the tool adds, removes, or changes voting weights of DAO members, distinguishing it from sibling tools like dao_list_members (read-only) and create_dao (initialization). It uses specific verbs and identifies the exact resource being manipulated.

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?

Opens with 'Use this when you need to...' providing explicit activation context. Names specific siblings ('See also: dao_list_members, create_dao') to guide tool selection. States the caller authorization requirement ('must be the group admin'), establishing clear prerequisites.

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