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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.