Gitopia MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds critical parameter format context ('unix timestamp') and required vs optional status, but omits mutation-specific behaviors: error handling for invalid bounty_ids, idempotency guarantees, side effects, or return value structure.

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?

Single, efficient sentence structure with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with usage intent, followed by parameter requirements, and ending with sibling references. 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?

Adequate for a simple two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, covering the basic contract. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should disclose error conditions or success indicators to be fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by adding semantic meaning to the 'expiry' parameter (unix timestamp format) and emphasizing the required nature of 'bounty_id'. It does not add context for what constitutes a valid bounty_id beyond the type integer.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose as extending a bounty's expiry, pairing a specific verb with the resource. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing get_bounty (read) and close_bounty (terminal state), though it omits differentiation from create_bounty or delete_bounty in the lifecycle.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('when you need to extend a bounty's expiry') and references sibling alternatives ('See also: get_bounty, close_bounty'). Lacks explicit when-NOT-to-use guidance (e.g., distinguishing from create_bounty) or prerequisite conditions.

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