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. It successfully discloses return fields (pending_id, tool, detail, wallet, expiry) and session-scoping behavior ('current session'). It implies read-only behavior through 'see' and 'Returns,' though it does not explicitly state safety characteristics or side effects.

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 efficiently cover purpose, return values, and related tools. Information is front-loaded with the action verb, and every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description compensates by enumerating return fields. For a zero-parameter listing tool, the description provides sufficient context for invocation and result interpretation.

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?

The input schema contains zero parameters. According to scoring rules, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4. No parameter documentation is required or expected.

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 explicitly states the tool 'see[s] all pending chain-write transactions awaiting confirmation in the current session,' providing specific resource (pending chain-write transactions), scope (current session), and distinguishing it from other list operations by focusing on confirmation-pending state.

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?

The description references sibling tools 'confirm_transaction' and 'reject_transaction' via 'See also,' implying the workflow sequence. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance (e.g., 'use this before confirming') or exclusion criteria.

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