ossinsight-mcp

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.