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 successfully discloses the side effect: 'Automatically initializes context from wallet if not already done.' It also documents the return structure. Minor gap: doesn't specify behavior when wallet is disconnected or caching/idempotency characteristics.

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 each serving distinct purposes: usage trigger, return payload, side-effect warning, and sibling cross-reference. No redundant text; front-loaded with the conditional 'Use this when' clause. Efficient density of information.

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 zero-parameter identity tool without output schema, the description compensates adequately by documenting return fields inline. References to sibling tools complete the contextual picture. Minor deduction for lack of error-state documentation (e.g., unauthenticated wallet).

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?

Zero parameters present, establishing a baseline of 4 per scoring rules. The description correctly does not invent parameter details, and the input schema confirms 'additionalProperties: false' with an empty object, making this a simple no-arg call.

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 clearly states the tool 'discover[s] the active identity' and enumerates specific return values (username, wallet address, active DAO, DAO list). It distinguishes itself from siblings set_active_dao (which modifies state) and refresh_user_context (which updates) by positioning this as the initial discovery mechanism at session start.

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 defines when to use ('at the start of a session') and references specific sibling alternatives ('See also: set_active_dao, refresh_user_context'). This provides clear guidance on tool selection hierarchy without the agent having to guess which user-context tool to invoke.

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