Gitopia MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Explains stateful nature (active context affects subsequent operations), reversion mechanism, and validation constraint. Minor gap: doesn't clarify if 'active' state is session-persistent or conversation-scoped.

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. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by behavioral effect, parameter mechanics, validation rule, and cross-reference. Every clause provides unique value beyond the schema.

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?

No output schema present, but description adequately covers the state-setting contract. Explains affected operations, valid inputs, and state reversal. Could improve by mentioning error behavior or state persistence scope, but sufficient 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 has 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions). Description fully compensates by explaining dao_name semantics ('pass to switch', 'omit to revert'), valid values constraint (must be in user context), and optional vs required behavior.

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?

States specific action ('switch operations to a DAO context') and scope ('repository and issue operations use the DAO as the owner'). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_dao (which creates DAOs) vs this tool which sets operational context.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('when you need to switch operations'), clear alternative path ('omit or pass empty string to revert to personal account'), and references validation source ('must appear in your get_user_context list'). Provides complete decision framework.

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