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 the critical dependency on prior state (prerequisite) and trigger conditions for staleness. It lacks details on idempotency or return values, but covers the essential behavioral constraint of sequencing.

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, each earning its place: trigger conditions, prerequisites, and cross-reference. No redundancy or fluff. Information is front-loaded with the usage condition.

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 parameterless tool without output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers operational context (when to call, prerequisites, sibling relationship). Minor gap in not describing the return value or side effects, but sufficient for tool selection.

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 zero parameters. Per scoring rules, 0 params yields a baseline score of 4. No parameter semantics are needed or provided.

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 implies the tool refreshes context by mentioning 'stale' state, but never explicitly states what action it performs (e.g., 'Refreshes the user context...'). It relies heavily on the tool name to convey the verb, which leaves the core purpose implicit rather than explicit.

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 lists trigger conditions ('after DAO membership changes, new repository creation'), states the strict prerequisite ('Requires get_user_context to have been called first'), and references the sibling alternative ('See also: get_user_context'), making the when-to-use vs alternatives crystal clear.

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