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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.