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 discloses the specific return fields (name, address, group_id, etc.) compensating for missing output schema, and explains prerequisite relationships to other tools. Minor gap: no mention of error handling or explicit read-only safety.

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 efficiently structured: usage context with prerequisite info, return values, input requirement, and sibling references. Zero redundancy; every sentence provides unique value not found 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?

Excellent completeness given no annotations/output schema. Describes return payload comprehensively, explains ecosystem role (prerequisite for governance), and identifies the single required parameter. Sufficient for correct agent 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% ('id' described as 'DAO name or address'). Description restates this ('Requires 'id' (DAO name or address)') but adds no additional semantic meaning, format constraints, or examples beyond the schema.

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?

Specifically states it retrieves 'DAO details' including group_id and group_policy_address, and distinguishes itself from siblings (create_dao, set_active_dao) by positioning as the lookup tool required for governance operations.

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 opens with 'Use this when you need...' and provides specific context (when you need group_id/group_policy_address for governance tools). Explicitly references siblings: 'See also: create_dao, dao_list_members, set_active_dao'.

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