ossinsight-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific data types and metrics (e.g., rankings by issues vs. PRs vs. stars, creators vs. stargazers, history vs. current lists). The descriptions precisely differentiate overlapping concepts like 'list_issue_creators' (current) vs. 'repo_issue_creators_history' (historical), eliminating ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear, descriptive naming conventions. Tools are logically grouped by prefix (e.g., 'collection_', 'repo_', 'issue_', 'pull_request_') and use consistent verbs like 'list', 'rank', or 'get' appropriately, making the set highly predictable and readable.
Tool Count4/5
With 18 tools, the count is slightly high but reasonable for the domain of OSS Insight analytics, which involves multiple metrics (issues, PRs, stars) across different entities (collections, repos, creators). Most tools earn their place, though a few like 'ossinsight_request' might overlap with others, slightly reducing efficiency.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for analyzing OSS data, including rankings, historical trends, creator demographics (countries, organizations), and repository listings. It supports full lifecycle analysis from current states to historical data, with no obvious gaps for the server's purpose of OSS insight and analytics.
Average 2.8/5 across 18 of 18 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does without mentioning any behavioral traits such as read-only vs. destructive, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral context, and expected outputs, making it insufficient for effective agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what 'collection_id' or 'period' represent, their formats, or how they affect the ranking. This leaves parameters semantically unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Rank' and the resource 'repositories in a collection by issues', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'collection_ranking_by_prs' or 'collection_ranking_by_stars', which rank by different metrics, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'collection_ranking_by_prs' for pull requests or 'list_collection_repositories' for a simple list, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal insight. It implies a read operation ('Get') but does not cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, data format, or whether it returns aggregated statistics versus raw data. This is inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it is overly concise to the point of under-specification, missing necessary details for effective tool use. While efficient, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, behavioral traits, or parameter meanings, leaving significant gaps. For a historical data tool with multiple time-related parameters, more context is needed to guide the agent adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'repository' which hints at 'owner' and 'repo' parameters, but does not explain 'period,' 'from,' or 'to,' leaving their purposes undocumented. This adds little value beyond the bare schema, resulting in poor parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get pull request creators history for a repository,' which is clear but vague. It specifies the resource (pull request creators history) and target (repository) but lacks detail on what 'history' entails (e.g., timeline, statistics, or activity logs). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'pull_request_creators_countries' but not clearly from 'repo_issue_creators_history,' leaving ambiguity in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as comparing it to 'list_pull_request_creators' or 'repo_issue_creators_history.' This leaves the agent without direction on selecting this tool over similar siblings in the server.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get issue creators history' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what data format is returned, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly. However, it could be more structured by hinting at key parameters or output.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter meanings, return values, or behavioral traits like data freshness or access constraints. For a tool with moderate complexity and poor structured data, more context is needed to be fully usable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters like 'owner', 'repo', 'period', 'from', or 'to', failing to explain their meanings, formats (e.g., date strings for 'from'/'to'), or how 'period' relates to date ranges. It doesn't compensate for the low coverage, leaving parameters ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get issue creators history for a repository' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('issue creators history'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what 'history' entails (e.g., timeline, statistics, or events) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_issue_creators' or 'issue_creators_countries', leaving ambiguity in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_issue_creators' and 'issue_creators_countries', the description lacks context for selection, such as whether this tool provides temporal data, aggregated metrics, or detailed logs. It offers no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions listing but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'page_size' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, error handling). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter usage, or output, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively beyond basic inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema—no explanation of what 'collection_id' refers to, how pagination works, or default values. With 3 parameters (one required) and no schema descriptions, this is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List repositories in a collection' states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('repositories in a collection'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'list_collections' or 'list_trending_repos'. It doesn't specify if this lists all repositories, only public ones, or includes metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_collections' (which might list collections themselves) and 'list_trending_repos' (which might list trending repositories regardless of collections), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('List'), implying non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination details (implied by 'page' and 'page_size' parameters but not explained), or what the output looks like (e.g., list of usernames). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 6 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a basic listing tool, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, output format, or behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely involves API calls with pagination and filtering, this leaves the agent under-informed about how to invoke it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'repository' which maps to 'owner' and 'repo' parameters, but adds no meaning for the other 4 parameters (sort, exclude_bots, page, page_size). This fails to explain what these parameters do or how they affect the listing, leaving them undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List issue creators for a repository' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('issue creators'), but it's vague about scope—does it list all creators, recent ones, or those with specific criteria? It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_pull_request_creators' by focusing on issues, but lacks specificity on what 'issue creators' entails (e.g., users who opened issues).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., repository access), exclusions, or how it differs from siblings like 'issue_creators_countries' or 'repo_issue_creators_history', leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the ranking action without details on output format, ranking order (e.g., ascending/descending), handling of ties, or any rate limits or permissions needed. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly, though this conciseness comes at the cost of missing additional helpful details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a ranking operation with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like parameter meanings, output structure, or behavioral traits, making it inadequate for the agent to fully understand and correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate but adds no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'collection_id' refers to, what 'period' means, or their expected formats, leaving both parameters semantically unclear despite the schema defining their types and constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Rank repositories') and resource ('in a collection') with the specific criterion ('by pull requests'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'collection_ranking_by_issues' or 'collection_ranking_by_stars' beyond the pull request focus, missing full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other ranking tools or list tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the ranking action but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with two parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter semantics, behavioral traits like output format or error handling, or usage context, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'collection' and 'stars', which loosely relate to 'collection_id' and the ranking metric, but doesn't explain the 'period' parameter at all or provide details on parameter formats or constraints, leaving significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Rank repositories') and the resource ('in a collection by stars'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'collection_ranking_by_issues' by specifying the ranking metric (stars), though it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from other ranking tools beyond the metric.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid collection_id, or compare it to siblings like 'list_collection_repositories' or 'list_hot_collections', leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions listing countries/regions but does not explain key behaviors such as data source, format of output, handling of missing data, or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameters, output format, behavioral traits, and differentiation from siblings, making it incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention any parameters, and the schema description coverage is 0%, with 5 parameters (owner, repo, exclude_unknown, from, to) undocumented in both schema and description. While the tool name and description imply some parameters (e.g., repository details), the lack of any parameter information in the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List countries/regions of issue creators for a repository.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('countries/regions of issue creators'), and target ('for a repository'), making the function understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_issue_creators' or 'repo_issue_creators_history', which reduces clarity in a crowded toolset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools related to issue creators and repositories (e.g., 'list_issue_creators', 'repo_issue_creators_history'), there is no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for this tool, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions listing creators but fails to describe key behaviors such as pagination handling (implied by 'page' and 'page_size' parameters), sorting options, bot exclusion, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details about parameter usage, behavioral traits, and output format, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke the tool without guesswork.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 6 parameters. It only implies 'owner' and 'repo' parameters by mentioning 'for a repository', but doesn't explain 'sort', 'exclude_bots', 'page', or 'page_size'. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('pull request creators for a repository'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pull_request_creators_history' or 'pull_request_creators_organizations', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'list_issue_creators', 'pull_request_creators_history'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists data but doesn't describe output format (e.g., list of countries with counts), pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits (e.g., data format, limitations), and output expectations. For a data-listing tool with multiple filters, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'for a repository,' which hints at 'owner' and 'repo' parameters, but doesn't explain the other three parameters ('exclude_unknown', 'from', 'to') or their semantics. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List countries/regions of PR creators for a repository.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('countries/regions of PR creators'), and scope ('for a repository'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pull_request_creators_history' or 'pull_request_creators_organizations', which focus on different aspects of PR creators.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'issue_creators_countries' (for issues) or 'repo_stargazers_countries' (for stargazers), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes (list, count, etc.), whether it requires authentication, or if there are rate limits. The description only states what the tool does at a high level without revealing implementation details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-constructed sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the return format, how organizations are determined, what happens with the date range parameters, or how 'exclude_unknown' affects results. For a tool with multiple parameters and no structured guidance, more contextual detail is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It doesn't explain what 'owner' and 'repo' refer to (GitHub repository), what 'exclude_unknown' means, or what date format 'from' and 'to' expect. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what's implied by the tool name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the target resource ('organizations of PR creators for a repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_pull_request_creators' by focusing specifically on organizations rather than individual creators. However, it doesn't specify whether this lists unique organizations or includes duplicates, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'pull_request_creators_countries' or 'repo_stargazers_organizations' that might serve similar organizational analysis purposes, nor does it specify prerequisites or constraints beyond the implied repository context. The user must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'List[s]' data, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or output format. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly, with every word contributing to clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral traits like data access or limitations, or what the output entails, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'stargazer countries/regions' but doesn't explain parameters like 'exclude_unknown', 'from', or 'to', leaving their purposes unclear. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names, failing to address the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('stargazer countries/regions for a repository'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'repo_stargazers_history' or 'repo_stargazers_organizations', which also involve stargazers but focus on different aspects, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like analyzing geographic distribution of stargazers, nor does it reference sibling tools such as 'repo_stargazers_history' for temporal data or 'repo_stargazers_organizations' for organizational insights, leaving usage context implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or pagination. This is inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'stargazers history' entails (e.g., time-series data, counts), how to use the optional parameters, or what the output looks like, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'stargazers history' and 'repository', which loosely relates to 'owner' and 'repo', but doesn't explain the meaning or usage of 'period', 'from', or 'to' parameters. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('stargazers history for a repository'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'repo_stargazers_countries' or 'repo_stargazers_organizations', which also involve repository stargazers data, so it lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does at a high level without mentioning critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to grasp quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral traits, or output expectations. For a tool that likely interacts with GitHub API data about stargazers, more context is needed to use it correctly without trial and error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't explain any parameters, such as what 'exclude_unknown' does, what 'from' and 'to' represent (likely date ranges), or the format expected for 'owner' and 'repo'. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and target ('organizations of stargazers for a repository'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'repo_stargazers_countries' or 'repo_stargazers_history', which also list stargazer-related information but with different filters or groupings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain how this differs from 'repo_stargazers_countries' (which lists countries instead of organizations) or when to use the 'exclude_unknown' parameter. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action ('List') without mentioning pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the pagination behavior implied by the parameters, what a 'collection' entails in this context, or what the return values look like. For a list operation with parameters, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter information beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters (page, per_page), the description doesn't compensate by explaining their purpose or usage. However, the parameters have defaults and constraints documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('OSS Insight collections'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'list_collection_repositories' or 'list_hot_collections', which also list related data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that also list collections or related data (e.g., 'list_collection_repositories', 'list_hot_collections'), there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool's scope or when it's preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('list trending repositories') but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or what 'trending' means (e.g., based on stars, activity). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly, with every word earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a listing tool with parameters and no output schema) and the lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'trending' entails, how results are returned, or any limitations, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage, the schema alone documents the parameters (period with enum values, language as string), but the description does not explain what these parameters do (e.g., how 'period' affects trending, what 'language' filters). This results in a baseline score of 3, as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately but the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'trending repositories from OSS Insight', which is specific and actionable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its many siblings (e.g., list_collection_repositories, list_hot_collections), which also list repositories or collections from the same source, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this particular tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like list_collection_repositories and list_hot_collections that might overlap in functionality, the absence of explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions leaves the agent without clear direction, relying solely on the tool name for inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists collections but doesn't explain what 'hot' means (e.g., trending, highly starred), how results are sorted or filtered, whether there are rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'List hot collections with top repositories.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify what 'hot' entails (e.g., criteria like stars, activity), how results are presented, or any limitations. For a tool with siblings that list collections in different ways, more context is needed to guide proper usage and set expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce any confusion about inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List hot collections with top repositories.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('hot collections'), and scope ('with top repositories'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_collections' or 'list_collection_repositories', which is why it doesn't earn a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as 'list_collections' and 'list_collection_repositories', it's unclear what distinguishes 'hot collections' (e.g., based on popularity, recency, or metrics). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool calls GET endpoints and returns JSON, which covers basic behavior, but fails to disclose critical traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'GET' but not stated). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Call any OSS Insight GET endpoint under /v1 and return JSON.' It is front-loaded with the core action and outcome, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the tool's scope and output format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a general-purpose API caller with 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, error handling, rate limits, and differentiation from siblings. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to guide effective use, but it falls short.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (only the 'path' parameter has a description). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it implies 'path' is for endpoints and 'query' is for parameters, but doesn't explain semantics like endpoint examples beyond the schema's 'such as' note or how 'query' maps to API parameters. With low schema coverage, the description doesn't fully compensate, so it meets the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Call any OSS Insight GET endpoint under /v1 and return JSON.' It specifies the verb ('Call'), resource ('OSS Insight GET endpoint'), and scope ('under /v1'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which are more specific endpoints, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning 'any OSS Insight GET endpoint under /v1,' suggesting it's a general-purpose tool for accessing various endpoints. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the more specific sibling tools (e.g., 'list_collections' or 'repo_stargazers_history'), which could lead to confusion. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ossinsight-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gztchan/ossinsight-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gztchan/ossinsight-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ossinsight-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gztchan/ossinsight-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gztchan/ossinsight-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/gztchan/ossinsight-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server