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 compensates for missing output schema by listing return fields ('Returns name, id, description, stars, forks, and owner'), but fails to disclose safety profile (read-only vs destructive), error conditions, or rate limits.

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?

Three tightly constructed sentences: usage context first, return values second, requirements and siblings third. No redundant words; information density is high with zero 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?

For a simple 2-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description adequately covers the gap by enumerating return fields. Could be improved by describing parameter semantics and error cases, but sufficient for correct 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 has 0% description coverage. Description acknowledges the two parameters ('Requires owner and name') but adds minimal semantic value—doesn't explain that 'owner' refers to a username/organization or that 'name' refers to the repository name, leaving interpretation to the schema property names alone.

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 the tool retrieves 'detailed information about a specific repository' and provides a concrete use case ('to get repo_id for merge'). References siblings 'list_repos' and 'git_clone' to help differentiate scope (single repo details vs listing/cloning).

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 explicit trigger condition ('Use this when you need detailed information...') and cites related tools ('See also: list_repos, git_clone') implying alternatives. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but effectively guides selection through the usage example.

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