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 effectively discloses critical behavioral traits: 'Signs and broadcasts an on-chain transaction' reveals this is a state-changing blockchain operation with external side effects. Could improve by mentioning gas fees or return format, but covers the essential mutation 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?

Extremely efficient at five sentences. Front-loaded with usage trigger ('Use this when...'), followed by side effects, parameters (grouped logically), and cross-references. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is appropriately complete. It covers the tool's purpose, side effects, parameter requirements, and sibling relationships. Missing only minor details like error handling or return value specifics (transaction hash), which would be nice but aren't critical gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description organizes parameters into Required vs Optional lists and repeats the enum values for 'option' and description for 'exec_try', but adds no semantic information beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Specific verb ('cast') and resource ('vote on an active DAO proposal') clearly stated. Distinguishes from siblings like dao_exec and dao_get_proposal through the 'See also' references, clarifying this is specifically for voting, not executing or retrieving proposals.

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 cast a vote'). References sibling tools (dao_get_proposal, dao_exec) to guide users toward alternatives for related actions, though it doesn't explicitly state 'do not use for execution' (implied by the reference).

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