Gitopia MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Compensates by detailing return format (JSON array with specific fields: id, tag_name, draft, pre_release, etc.) and default limit behavior. However, omits safety profile (read-only vs destructive), rate limits, or error handling that annotations would typically cover.

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 tightly constructed sentences covering purpose, return format, parameters, and alternatives. No redundant phrases; information density is high with zero waste.

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?

Given no output schema exists, description effectively documents return structure and fields. For a 3-parameter read operation with 100% schema coverage, this is sufficient, though rate limit or pagination details would elevate it to 5.

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%, establishing baseline 3. Description confirms required vs optional status and repeats default value (50), but adds no semantic depth beyond schema descriptions (e.g., no examples of owner/name format or limit constraints beyond minimum 0).

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?

Explicitly states the tool 'discover[s] published releases for a repository' with clear verb and resource scope. Distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing 'list_tags' and 'create_release' as alternatives.

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 when-to-use clause ('Use this when you need to discover...'). References sibling tools ('See also: list_tags, create_release') to guide selection, though lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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