ossinsight-mcp

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.