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 return format ('JSON array of label objects with id, name, color, and description'), compensating for the lack of output schema. However, it omits explicit safety disclosure (e.g., confirming it is read-only) or rate limiting information.

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 sentences with zero waste: sentence 1 establishes usage context, sentence 2 describes return values, and sentence 3 covers prerequisites and cross-references. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 tool without annotations or output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers invocation context, required parameters, return structure, and sibling relationships. A minor gap is the lack of explicit safety classification (read-only status), though this is implied by the operation type.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage (owner and name are well-defined), establishing a baseline of 3. The description notes that these are required but adds no additional semantic context such as format constraints, validation rules, or examples 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource (repository labels) and action (see/retrieve them). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like create_label and update_issue via the 'See also' reference and the contextual phrase 'before applying them to issues.' The verb 'see' is slightly less precise than 'list' or 'retrieve,' preventing a perfect score.

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?

Excellent guidance: explicitly states when to use ('when you need to see available labels... before applying them to issues'), identifies required inputs ('Requires owner and name'), and names specific sibling alternatives (create_label, update_issue). This provides clear decision-making context for the agent.

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