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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.