Gitopia MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses critical behavioral traits: 'Signs and broadcasts an on-chain transaction' and 'Irreversible'—essential for a destructive operation. Missing minor details like side effects on issues using the label or specific error conditions.

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?

Efficiently structured with purpose first, then mechanism, then requirements, then cross-references. Five sentences with zero waste. Every clause provides unique information 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 100% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context for a destructive blockchain operation. Minor gap regarding return behavior or confirmation status, but sufficient 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explicitly listing required parameters and noting that label_id comes 'from list_labels', providing crucial workflow context linking to sibling tools.

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?

States specific action ('permanently remove a label') and target resource ('repository'). Distinguishes from sibling tools create_label and list_labels via explicit 'See also' cross-references. Scope is clearly defined.

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 clear when-to-use ('when you need to permanently remove') and cites complementary tools (list_labels, create_label). The 'Irreversible' warning implies when-not-to-use. Minor gap: could explicitly instruct to call list_labels first to obtain the label_id.

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