Gitopia MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, description carries full burden and successfully discloses critical traits: 'without broadcasting' (specific chain behavior) and 'permanently removed' (destructive nature). Missing only error-handling or permission requirements.

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 with zero waste: action front-loaded ('Use this to cancel'), constraint stated, consequence clarified ('permanently removed'), and siblings referenced. 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?

Adequately covers the single-parameter destructive operation's core behavior given no output schema and no annotations. Would benefit from mentioning authorization requirements or failure modes, but permanence disclosure suffices for safe invocation.

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% with pending_id fully documented. Description mentions the requirement but adds no syntax, format details, or semantic nuance beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Specific verb 'cancel' combined with precise resource 'pending chain-write transaction' and scope 'without broadcasting' clearly distinguishes from sibling confirm_transaction (which would approve) and list_pending_transactions (which only lists).

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 states prerequisite 'Requires pending_id' and names specific alternatives via 'See also: list_pending_transactions, confirm_transaction', providing clear guidance on when to use this rejection tool versus listing or confirming.

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