停止氛围幻觉并开始氛围编码！
GitMCP是一个免费的开源远程模型上下文协议 (MCP)服务器，可将任何GitHub 项目（代码库或 GitHub 页面）转换为文档中心。它使 Cursor 等 AI 工具能够访问最新的文档和代码，即使法学硕士 (LLM) 从未接触过这些文档和代码，从而无缝消除代码幻觉。
GitMCP 支持两种风格-
**特定仓库（ gitmcp.io/{owner}/{repo}或{owner}.gitmcp.io/{repo} ）：**当您主要使用少量库时，请使用这些仓库。这可确保您的AI助手始终定位正确的项目，并通过阻止访问非预期的仓库来增强安全性和相关性。
**通用服务器 ( gitmcp.io/docs )：**当您需要频繁切换不同的仓库时，可以使用此功能获得最大的灵活性。AI 助手会提示您（或根据上下文决定）每次请求时访问哪个仓库。请注意，这依赖于每次都能正确识别目标仓库。
使用 GitMCP：
人工智能助手直接从源头访问最新的文档和代码。
获得准确的 API 使用方法和可靠的代码示例。
即使对于小众、新兴或快速变化的图书馆也能有效地工作。
显著减少幻觉并提高代码正确性。
例如，此并排比较显示了在创建three.js场景时在 Cursor 中执行相同一次性提示的结果 -
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/fbf1b4a7-f9f0-4c0e-831c-4d64faae2c45
Related MCP server: GitMCP
😎获取任何 GitHub 项目的最新文档：授予您的 AI 助手无缝访问 GitHub 项目文档和代码的权限。内置的智能搜索功能可帮助 AI 精准找到所需内容，无需消耗过多令牌！
🧠不再产生幻觉：使用 GitMCP，您的 AI 助手可以为您的问题提供准确且相关的答案。
☁️零设置：GitMCP 在云端运行。只需在 IDE 中将所选的 GitMCP URL 添加为 MCP 服务器即可——无需下载、安装、注册或进行任何更改。
💬嵌入式聊天：通过我们的浏览器内聊天直接与存储库的文档聊天，快速开始！
✅开放、免费、私密：GitMCP 是开源的，完全免费使用。它不会收集个人信息，也不会存储查询。您甚至可以自行托管它！
使用 GitMCP 非常简单！只需按照以下步骤操作：
根据您要连接的内容选择以下 URL 格式之一：
对于 GitHub 存储库： gitmcp.io/{owner}/{repo}
对于 GitHub Pages 网站： {owner}.gitmcp.io/{repo}
对于支持任何存储库（动态）的通用工具： gitmcp.io/docs
将{owner}替换为 GitHub 用户名或组织名称，将{repo}替换为存储库名称。
为了您的方便，您还可以使用登陆页面上的转换工具将 GitHub URL 格式化为 MCP URL！
从以下选项中选择您的 AI 助手并按照配置说明进行操作：
在~/.cursor/mcp.json更新你的 Cursor 配置文件：
{
"mcpServers": {
"gitmcp": {
"url": "https://gitmcp.io/{owner}/{repo}"
}
}
}在 Claude Desktop 中，转到“设置”>“开发者”>“编辑配置”
将配置替换为：
{
"mcpServers": {
"gitmcp": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"mcp-remote",
"https://gitmcp.io/{owner}/{repo}"
]
}
}
}在~/.codeium/windsurf/mcp_config.json更新您的 Windsurf 配置文件：
{
"mcpServers": {
"gitmcp": {
"serverUrl": "https://gitmcp.io/{owner}/{repo}"
}
}
}在.vscode/mcp.json更新你的 VSCode 配置文件：
{
"servers": {
"gitmcp": {
"type": "sse",
"url": "https://gitmcp.io/{owner}/{repo}"
}
}
}在~/Library/Application Support/Code/User/globalStorage/saoudrizwan.claude-dev/settings/cline_mcp_settings.json更新您的 Cline 配置文件：
{
"mcpServers": {
"gitmcp": {
"url": "https://gitmcp.io/{owner}/{repo}",
"disabled": false,
"autoApprove": []
}
}
}打开 Highlight AI 并点击侧边栏中的插件图标（@ 符号）
点击侧边栏顶部的**“已安装的插件”**
选择自定义插件
点击使用自定义 SSE URL 添加插件
插件名称： gitmcp SSE URL： https://gitmcp.io/{owner}/{repo}
有关向 HighlightAI 添加自定义 MCP 服务器的更多详细信息，请参阅文档。
**注意：**请务必将
{owner}和{repo}替换为实际的 GitHub 用户名/组织和仓库名称。您还可以使用动态端点https://gitmcp.io/docs，以允许您的 AI 按需访问任何仓库。
GitMCP 使用模型上下文协议 (MCP) 将您的 AI 助手连接到 GitHub 存储库，该协议是一种允许 AI 工具从外部来源请求其他信息的标准。
使用 GitMCP 时会发生什么：
你向你的 AI 助手提供 GitMCP 的 URL （例如， gitmcp.io/microsoft/typescript ）。GitMCP 提供了文档获取、智能搜索、代码搜索等工具。
向 AI 助手提示与文档/代码相关的问题。
您的 AI 向 GitMCP 发送请求以使用其工具（经您批准）。
GitMCP 执行 AI 的请求并返回请求的数据。
您的人工智能会接收信息并生成更准确、更扎实的反应，而不会产生幻觉。
GitMCP 目前支持以下文档（按优先级排序）：
项目文档的 AI 优化版本
README.md /root
以下是一些如何将 GitMCP 与不同的 AI 助手和存储库一起使用的示例：
对于 GitHub 存储库https://github.com/microsoft/playwright-mcp ，将https://gitmcp.io/microsoft/playwright-mcp作为 MCP 服务器添加到 Windsurf。
提示克劳德：
如何使用 Playwright MCP？
Windsurf 将从 GitMCP 中提取相关文档以正确实现记忆功能。
对于 GitHub Pages 站点langchain-ai.github.io/langgraph ，将https://langchain-ai.gitmcp.io/langgraph作为 MCP 服务器添加到 Cursor。
提示光标：
“为我的 LangGraph 代理添加内存”
Cursor 将从 GitMCP 中提取相关文档和代码，以正确实现记忆功能。
您无需选择特定的存储库。通用的gitmcp.io/docs端点允许 AI 动态选择 GitHub 项目！
向任何 AI 助手提示：
“我想了解 OpenAI Whisper 语音识别模型。请解释一下它是如何工作的。
Claude 将从 GitMCP 中提取数据并回答问题。
GitMCP 为 AI 助手提供了一些有价值的工具，帮助他们访问、理解和查询 GitHub 存储库。
fetch_<repo-name>_documentation此工具从 GitHub 仓库获取主要文档。它的工作原理是检索相关文档（例如llms.txt ）。这能让 AI 很好地了解项目内容。
**适用情况：**针对项目目的、功能或如何开始的一般问题
search_<repo-name>_documentation此工具允许 AI 通过提供特定的搜索查询来搜索存储库的文档。它无需加载所有文档（文档可能非常庞大），而是使用智能搜索来查找相关的部分。
**适用情况：**针对项目内特定特性、功能或概念的具体问题
fetch_url_content此工具可帮助 AI 从文档中提到的链接获取信息。它从这些链接中检索内容，并将其转换为 AI 易于阅读的格式。
**何时有用：**当文档引用有助于回答您的问题的外部信息时
search_<repo-name>_code该工具使用 GitHub 的代码搜索功能搜索存储库中的实际代码。它可以帮助 AI 找到具体的代码示例或实现细节。
**何时有用：**当您需要了解某些内容的实施方式示例或需要文档中未涵盖的技术细节时
**注意：**当使用动态端点（
gitmcp.io/docs）时，这些工具的命名略有不同（fetch_generic_documentation，search_generic_code和search_generic_documentation），并且需要有关访问哪个存储库的其他信息。
GitMCP 会在您的仓库的 README 中添加一个徽章。它允许用户通过他们的 IDE 或浏览器（使用内置的聊天功能）快速访问您的文档。它还会显示您的文档通过 GitMCP 被访问的次数。
示例（ idosal/git-mcp ）：
将以下内容添加到您的README.md中：
[](https://gitmcp.io/OWNER/REPO)将OWNER替换为您的 GitHub 用户名或组织，将REPO为您的存储库名称。
针对特定存储库上的每个工具调用增加。
您可以使用参数自定义徽章的外观：
范围 | 描述 | 默认 | 例子 |
| 徽章值的颜色 |
|
|
| 徽章标签 |
|
|
请伸出援手！
模型上下文协议是一种标准，允许人工智能助手以结构化的方式从外部来源请求和接收额外的上下文，从而增强他们的理解和性能。
是的，GitMCP 与任何支持模型上下文协议的 AI 助手兼容，包括 Cursor、VSCode、Claude 等工具。
当然！GitMCP 无需任何修改即可兼容任何公共 GitHub 仓库。它会优先使用llms.txt文件，如果 llms.txt 文件不可用，则会回退到README.md或其他页面。未来的更新旨在支持更多文档方法，甚至动态生成内容。
不，GitMCP 是面向社区的免费服务，无需任何相关费用。
GitMCP 致力于保护用户的隐私。由于无需身份验证，该服务无法访问或存储任何个人身份信息。此外，它也不会存储代理发送的任何查询。此外，由于 GitMCP 是一个开源项目，因此它可以在您的环境中独立部署。
GitMCP 仅访问已公开的内容，并且仅在用户查询时才会访问。GitMCP 不会自动抓取代码仓库。在访问任何 GitHub Pages 网站之前，代码会检查robots.txt规则，并遵循网站所有者设置的指令，允许他们选择退出。请注意，GitMCP 不会永久存储有关 GitHub 项目或其内容的数据。
我们欢迎您的贡献、反馈和想法！请查看我们的贡献指南。
克隆存储库
git clone https://github.com/idosal/git-mcp.git
cd git-mcp安装依赖项
pnpm install在本地运行以进行开发
npm run dev
# or
pnpm dev安装 MCP Inspector 工具：
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector在检查器界面中：
将传输类型设置为SSE
输入你的 GitMCP URL（例如， http://localhost:5173/docs ）
点击“连接”
该项目采用Apache License 2.0许可。
GitMCP 按“原样”提供，不提供任何形式的担保。虽然我们努力确保服务的可靠性和安全性，但我们对因使用服务而可能产生的任何损害或问题概不负责。通过 GitMCP 访问的 GitHub 项目受其各自所有者的条款和条件约束。GitMCP 与 GitHub 或任何提及的 AI 工具均无关联。
Get token information for a provider
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | Yes | Provider name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, what information is returned (e.g., token expiry, scopes), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool handling sensitive token data.
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 purpose ('Get token information for a provider'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.
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 authentication tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what token information is retrieved, the response format, or error conditions. For a tool that likely returns sensitive data, this leaves the agent under-informed.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'provider' documented as 'Provider name'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid providers or format requirements. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Get') and resource ('token information for a provider'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'auth_test_connection' or 'config_get' that might also retrieve authentication-related information, preventing 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 prerequisites (e.g., whether a token must already exist), exclusions, or relationships to siblings like 'auth_set_token' or 'auth_test_connection', leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Set authentication token for a provider
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | Yes | Provider name (gitea, github) | |
| token | Yes | Authentication token |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a 'Set' operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this persists tokens across sessions, requires specific permissions, overwrites existing tokens, or has side effects (e.g., testing the token). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, 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 an authentication mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what happens after setting the token (e.g., success response, error handling, or how it integrates with other tools like 'auth_test_connection'), leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full context.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('provider' and 'token'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain provider options like 'gitea' or 'github' in more detail), so it meets the baseline of 3 for high 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 action ('Set') and resource ('authentication token for a provider'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'auth_test_connection' or other auth-related tools, which could have overlapping purposes in authentication workflows.
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 like 'auth_test_connection' or 'config_set' (which might handle similar settings). It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., whether a provider must be configured first) or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Test connection to a provider
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | Yes | Provider name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Test connection' implies a read-only diagnostic operation, but the description doesn't specify what constitutes a successful test, what output to expect, whether authentication is required, or any rate limits. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.
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 extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place in communicating the core functionality.
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?
For a diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a successful test looks like, what format results are returned in, whether authentication is needed, or what providers are supported. The minimal description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.
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 100% with the single 'provider' parameter well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not exceptional parameter documentation.
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 ('Test connection') and target ('to a provider'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives like 'health_check' or 'ping' that might also test connectivity, so it doesn't fully differentiate from siblings.
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. There are sibling tools like 'health_check' and 'ping' that might serve similar connectivity testing purposes, but the description doesn't indicate when this specific provider connection test is appropriate versus those general health checks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a backup
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| includeIssues | No | Include issues | |
| includePRs | No | Include pull requests | |
| provider | Yes | Provider name | |
| repo | Yes | Repository name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, whether it's destructive, what happens during execution, or what the expected outcome is. 'Create a backup' implies a write operation but lacks all behavioral context.
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 extremely concise at just two words, with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by stating the essential 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?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'backup' entails, what resource it operates on, what the output looks like, or any behavioral characteristics. The minimal description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (provider, repo, includeIssues, includePRs) with their types and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate 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 'Create a backup' is a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what resource is being backed up or distinguishing it from sibling tools like backup_list. It lacks a specific verb+resource combination and doesn't clarify what type of backup this creates (e.g., repository backup vs. configuration backup).
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 backup_list, doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., authentication status), and offers no context about appropriate use cases or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List backups
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | Yes | Provider name | |
| repo | No | Repository name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List backups' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of backup names or detailed metadata). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential complexity.
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 extremely concise at two words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded and to the point, making it efficient for an agent to parse, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'backups' entail, how results are returned, or any behavioral traits, making it inadequate for a tool that likely interacts with backup systems and has two parameters.
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 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions ('Provider name', 'Repository name'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 by not contradicting but not enhancing parameter understanding.
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 'List backups' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('backups'), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what kind of backups (e.g., system, database, file) or differentiate from sibling tools like 'backup_create', making it somewhat vague but still understandable.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing authentication or specific configurations) or compare to related tools like 'backup_create' or 'config_list', leaving the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get a configuration value
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Configuration key |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, error handling (e.g., if key doesn't exist), or rate limits. It's minimal and lacks context beyond the basic action.
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 extremely concise with a single sentence 'Get a configuration value', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary details.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., value type, structure), error conditions, or how it fits with siblings like 'config_set'. For a tool with minimal structured data, more context 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'key' documented as 'Configuration key'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain key formats, examples, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 a configuration value' clearly states the action (get) and resource (configuration value), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'config_list' or 'config_set'. It doesn't specify what kind of configuration or where it's stored.
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 like 'config_list' (which might list all configs) or 'config_set' (for setting values). The description implies retrieval but doesn't specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all configuration values
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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. 'List all configuration values' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the output takes, if there are rate limits, or if the list is paginated. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point: 'List all configuration values'. There's no wasted words, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. It's perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for this simple tool.
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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details about output format, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a basic list operation, this might suffice, but it doesn't provide complete context for reliable agent use.
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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter documentation in the description. The description correctly avoids discussing parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is assigned for zero-parameter tools that don't mislead about inputs.
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 'List all configuration values' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('configuration values'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'config_get' (which retrieves specific values) and 'config_set' (which modifies values) by focusing on comprehensive listing. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it returns all values without filtering, which would make it a perfect 5.
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 like 'config_get' for retrieving specific values or 'config_set' for modifying values. There's no mention of prerequisites, context for usage, or explicit exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling relationships alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Set a configuration value
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Configuration key | |
| value | Yes | Configuration value |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Set a configuration value,' implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether changes are persistent or reversible, error handling, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, 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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after setting (e.g., success confirmation, error responses), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like security or persistence, leaving gaps for agent understanding.
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 100%, with both parameters ('key' and 'value') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of valid keys/values or formatting rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation 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 'Set a configuration value' clearly states the action (set) and resource (configuration value), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of configuration (e.g., system, application, user) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'config_get' or 'config_list' beyond the verb difference.
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 prerequisites (e.g., authentication), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'config_get' for reading or 'config_list' for listing, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check environment variables
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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. 'Check environment variables' implies a read-only operation, but it does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a list, a status report), whether it has side effects, or any constraints like permission requirements or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.
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 'Check environment variables' is a single, efficient phrase that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. There is no structural waste, but it lacks depth that might be beneficial for clarity.
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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'checking' entails or what the output might be, leaving the agent unsure of the tool's full functionality. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.
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 tool has 0 parameters, with 100% schema description coverage, meaning the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description does not add any parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as there is no need to compensate for schema gaps.
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 'Check environment variables' clearly states the verb ('Check') and resource ('environment variables'), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it lacks specificity about what 'checking' entails (e.g., listing all variables, verifying specific ones, validating values) and does not distinguish it from potential sibling tools like 'config_get' or 'config_list', which might overlap in functionality. This makes it vague but not misleading.
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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it's for debugging, configuration validation, or system health checks. With sibling tools like 'config_get' and 'health_check' that might serve similar purposes, the lack of differentiation leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add files to Git staging area
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Repository path | |
| patterns | No | File patterns to add |
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 the action ('Add files') but doesn't mention critical behaviors like whether this is a read-only or mutating operation (it's mutating), what happens on success/failure, or if there are side effects (e.g., staging files for commit). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's impact.
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 zero waste—'Add files to Git staging area' is front-loaded and directly conveys the core action. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
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 tool's complexity (a mutating operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances (e.g., how patterns work, what 'staging area' entails). For a tool that modifies state, this lack of context could lead to misuse by an agent.
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 100%, with both parameters ('path' and 'patterns') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about parameters beyond implying files are involved, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating for gaps.
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 'Add files to Git staging area' clearly states the verb ('Add') and resource ('files to Git staging area'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like git_commit or git_status, which also interact with the staging area in different ways.
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 like git_commit (which commits staged files) or git_status (which shows staging status). It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a git repository initialized) or exclusions, leaving the agent to 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.
Create a new branch
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Branch name | |
| path | Yes | Repository path |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this requires write permissions, if it's destructive to existing branches, potential errors (e.g., duplicate branch names), or what happens on success (e.g., branch creation confirmation). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted text. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for quick comprehension.
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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context like what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral implications, which are essential for an agent to use it effectively in a Git workflow.
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 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (name and path). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
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 'Create a new branch' clearly states the action (create) and resource (branch), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like git_branch_list or git_branch_switch, which would require mentioning it's specifically for creation rather than listing or switching branches.
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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an initialized repository), exclusions, or related tools like git_branch_switch for moving between branches, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all branches
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Repository path |
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. 'List all branches' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify output format (e.g., list of branch names, details), pagination, error conditions, or dependencies like requiring git to be installed. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 'List all branches' is extremely concise—three words that directly convey the core action. It's front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero wasted words. This efficiency makes it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly, earning a top score for conciseness.
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 tool's complexity (a Git operation with one parameter) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'all branches' entails (e.g., local, remote, or both), the return format, or error handling. For a tool interacting with version control, more context is needed to ensure correct usage by an agent.
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 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter documented as 'Repository path'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying path format (e.g., absolute vs. relative) or examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.
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 'List all branches' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('branches'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like git_branch_create or git_branch_switch by focusing on listing rather than creation or switching. However, it doesn't specify the scope (e.g., local vs. remote branches), 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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an initialized repository), contrast with similar tools like git_status for repository state, or specify use cases. Without any contextual hints, the agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Switch to a branch
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Branch name | |
| path | Yes | Repository path |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Switch to a branch' implies a mutation (changing the active branch), but it doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., requiring a clean working directory), authentication needs, error conditions, or what happens if the branch doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core action without any wasted text. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's purpose.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation or error), behavioral constraints, or integration with sibling tools. Given the complexity of Git operations, more context is needed for safe and effective use.
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 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., explaining that 'path' is the local repository directory or 'name' must be an existing branch). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('switch to') and resource ('a branch'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like git_branch_create or git_branch_list, which would require mentioning this specifically changes the active/current branch rather than creating or listing branches.
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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing branch or repository), when not to use it (e.g., during conflicts), or refer to related tools like git_branch_create for creating branches before switching.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Clone a repository
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dest | Yes | Destination path | |
| url | Yes | Repository URL |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Clone a repository' implies a read/write operation that creates local files, but it doesn't specify permissions needed, whether it overwrites existing directories, error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies the filesystem.
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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core action and resource. There's zero wasted text, making it easy to parse quickly while still conveying the essential purpose.
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 cloning (filesystem changes, network operations) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what happens on failure, whether 'dest' must not exist, or what the tool returns, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (url, dest) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage without extra value.
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 'Clone a repository' clearly states the action (clone) and resource (repository), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'git_init' (which creates a new repository) or 'git_pull' (which updates an existing clone), missing explicit sibling distinction.
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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a repository URL), when not to use it (e.g., for existing repositories), or direct alternatives among siblings like 'git_init' for new repositories or 'git_pull' for updates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Commit staged changes
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | Commit message | |
| path | Yes | Repository path |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Commit staged changes' implies a write operation that modifies repository history, but it lacks details on permissions needed, whether it's reversible (e.g., via git reset), error conditions (e.g., no staged changes), or output format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 phrase ('Commit staged changes') with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 required parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, reversibility, or error handling, nor does it explain the commit's effect or return values. For a Git operation that alters repository state, more context 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('message' and 'path') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain message conventions or path requirements). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Commit staged changes' clearly states the verb ('commit') and resource ('staged changes'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like git_add (which stages changes) or git_push (which pushes commits), but the core action is unambiguous.
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 prerequisites (e.g., requiring staged changes via git_add), exclusions (e.g., not for uncommitted changes), or relationships with sibling tools like git_push for remote sharing. Usage is implied but not articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a new repository on Gitea
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| description | No | Repository description | |
| name | Yes | Repository name | |
| private | No | Private repository |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a write operation ('Create') but lacks details on permissions needed, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a repo object). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, potential side effects, or error handling, which are critical for an agent to use it effectively. The high schema coverage helps with inputs but doesn't compensate for the lack of output and behavioral context.
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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (name, description, private). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding value.
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 ('Create') and resource ('new repository on Gitea'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'github_create_repo', which performs a similar function on a different platform, so it doesn't achieve full sibling distinction.
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 like 'github_create_repo' or 'git_init', nor does it mention prerequisites such as authentication or context requirements. It simply states what the tool does without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get repository information from Gitea
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | Repository owner | |
| repo | Yes | Repository name |
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 the action ('Get repository information') without detailing aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or the format of the returned information. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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 tool's complexity (a read operation with 2 parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned, how errors are handled, or any behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.
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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('owner' and 'repo') as required strings. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get repository information from Gitea', which includes a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('repository information from Gitea'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'gitea_list_repos' or specify what type of information is retrieved (e.g., metadata, settings, or full details), making it somewhat vague.
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 like 'gitea_list_repos' or 'github_list_repos'. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing authentication or specific permissions, or when this tool is preferred over others for retrieving repository data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List repositories on Gitea
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | No | Username to list repos for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to 'list' repositories, which implies a read-only operation, but does not specify whether it requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 zero waste—'List repositories on Gitea'—making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness.
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 tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on authentication needs, result format, or behavioral traits, which are important for a read operation in a multi-tool environment. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps.
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 100% description coverage, with the 'user' parameter documented as 'Username to list repos for'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining default behavior if 'user' is omitted or detailing output structure. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'List repositories on Gitea' clearly states the action (list) and resource (repositories on Gitea), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_list_repos' or 'gitea_get_repo', which would require mentioning scope or filtering details to earn a 5.
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 does not mention when to choose 'gitea_list_repos' over 'github_list_repos' or 'gitea_get_repo', nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a new repository on GitHub
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| description | No | Repository description | |
| name | Yes | Repository name | |
| private | No | Private repository |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it creates a repository but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns repository details). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information (create repository) and doesn't include unnecessary details, making it highly efficient.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain authentication needs, error handling, or what the tool returns, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use it effectively in context.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (name, description, private) with their types and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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 action ('Create') and resource ('new repository on GitHub'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'gitea_create_repo' which performs a similar function for a different platform, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 like 'gitea_create_repo' or 'git_init', nor does it mention prerequisites such as authentication. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List repositories on GitHub
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | No | Username to list repos for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'List repositories on GitHub' implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens if the 'user' parameter is omitted. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate behavioral disclosure.
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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the core purpose immediately.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain authentication needs, return format, error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a GitHub API tool that likely requires authentication, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
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 100%, with the single parameter 'user' documented as 'Username to list repos for'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'List repositories on GitHub' clearly states the action (list) and resource (repositories on GitHub). It distinguishes from siblings like 'github_create_repo' (create vs list) and 'gitea_list_repos' (GitHub vs Gitea platform). However, it doesn't specify scope (e.g., all repos vs user-specific), 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 whether it lists all GitHub repos, user-specific repos, or how it differs from 'gitea_list_repos' for similar functionality on a different platform. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Initialize a new Git repository
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path to initialize repository |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't mention what happens when run (creates .git directory, sets up initial structure), potential side effects (overwrites existing .git?), error conditions, or output format. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.
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 that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential 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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does beyond the high-level action, what gets created, what the expected outcome is, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would need to guess about implementation details.
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 100%, with the single parameter 'path' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for adequate but unenriched parameter documentation.
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 ('Initialize') and resource ('a new Git repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like git_clone (which also creates repositories) or explain what distinguishes initialization from cloning.
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 like git_clone or gitea_create_repo. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an empty directory) or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer appropriate contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Merge a branch into current branch
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Repository path | |
| source_branch | Yes | Source branch to merge |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'merge' implies a write operation, the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this creates a merge commit, what happens with conflicts, whether it requires a clean working directory, or what the expected output looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded. This is an example of efficient communication.
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?
For a git merge operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the behavioral implications of merging, potential side effects, error conditions, or what constitutes success. Given the complexity of git operations and the lack of structured safety information, this description leaves too many questions unanswered.
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 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (repository path and source branch). It doesn't explain what 'current branch' means or how it's determined. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('merge') and target ('a branch into current branch'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives like 'git_rebase' or explain how it differs from sibling tools like 'git_pull' that also involve merging.
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 prerequisites (like being in a git repository), when merging is appropriate versus rebasing, or what happens if there are conflicts. With multiple git-related sibling tools available, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Pull changes from remote repository
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| branch | No | Branch name | main |
| path | Yes | Repository path | |
| remote | No | Remote name | origin |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe what happens (e.g., merges changes into current branch, may create merge commits, requires network connectivity, could fail on conflicts). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in explaining operational behavior.
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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success status, merge results, error messages) or important behavioral aspects like side effects. Given the complexity of git operations and lack of structured data, more context is needed for effective agent use.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (branch, path, remote) with their types and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or special constraints. This meets the baseline for high 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 verb ('pull') and resource ('changes from remote repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like git_push (which pushes changes) and git_clone (which creates a new repository). However, it doesn't specify what type of changes (commits, tags, etc.) or mention the local repository aspect, keeping it from 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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an initialized repository), when not to use it (e.g., during merge conflicts), or compare to siblings like git_fetch (which retrieves changes without merging). This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Push commits to remote repository
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| branch | No | Branch name | main |
| path | Yes | Repository path | |
| remote | No | Remote name | origin |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('push') but doesn't reveal critical traits: whether it requires authentication, what happens on conflicts (e.g., merge requirements), if it's destructive (overwrites remote history), rate limits, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose without redundancy.
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 git push operation (a mutation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication needs, conflict handling, success/error responses, and how it interacts with siblings like git_commit or git_pull. For a tool with such behavioral nuances, this is inadequate.
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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (branch, path, remote) with defaults and types. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying these parameters might be involved in the push operation. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding further.
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 ('push') and resource ('commits to remote repository'), which distinguishes it from siblings like git_pull, git_commit, or git_add. However, it doesn't specify what type of commits (e.g., local, staged) or differentiate from potential alternatives like force-push operations, keeping it from 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 prerequisites (e.g., needing commits ready to push, authentication status), exclusions (e.g., not for initial pushes or force pushes), or sibling tools like git_pull for fetching changes first. This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get repository status
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Repository path |
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. 'Get repository status' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, what the output format is (e.g., text summary, structured data), or if there are rate limits. The description lacks details on behavioral traits beyond the basic action.
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 extremely concise with a single sentence 'Get repository status', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to scan and understand 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 tool's complexity (a Git operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'status' includes, the return format, or error conditions. For a tool that likely outputs detailed repository state information, more context is needed to guide effective use by an AI agent.
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 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter documented as 'Repository path'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as clarifying path formats (e.g., absolute vs. relative) or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation 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 'Get repository status' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('repository status'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'status' specifically entails (e.g., staged changes, untracked files, branch info) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'git_branch_list' or 'git_add', which might overlap in providing status-related information.
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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an initialized repository), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'git_branch_list' for branch-specific status. Usage is implied from the name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Perform health check
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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. 'Perform health check' reveals nothing about what the tool actually does - whether it's a simple status check, a comprehensive system diagnostic, whether it has side effects, what permissions it requires, or what format the results take. This is completely inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
While technically concise with just two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide the minimal necessary information about what the tool does. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide enough value - they merely restate the tool name without adding useful context or differentiation.
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 complete lack of annotations and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. 'Perform health check' doesn't explain what constitutes a health check in this context, what systems are checked, what the expected output format is, or how to interpret results. For a diagnostic tool that presumably returns status information, this minimal description leaves critical gaps in understanding.
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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. While the description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides, this is acceptable given the zero-parameter baseline. A score of 4 reflects that the description doesn't detract from the complete 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 'Perform health check' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what kind of health check, what system or service is being checked, or what constitutes 'health' in this context. While it uses a verb ('perform'), it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish this from other diagnostic tools like 'ping' or 'env_check' in the sibling list.
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 any prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. With sibling tools like 'ping', 'env_check', and 'auth_test_connection' that might serve similar diagnostic purposes, the absence of usage guidance leaves the agent guessing about when this specific health check is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Test connectivity
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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. 'Test connectivity' implies a read-only diagnostic operation, but it doesn't specify what happens during the test (e.g., whether it pings a network, checks API endpoints, or validates configurations), what the expected output looks like, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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 extremely concise with just two words, 'Test connectivity', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. For a simple diagnostic tool with no parameters, this brevity is appropriate and efficient.
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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'connectivity' means in this context, what the test entails, or what result to expect. For a diagnostic tool, more context on behavior and output would be helpful, even without structured fields to compensate.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. This meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.
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 'Test connectivity' states what the tool does at a basic level, but it's vague about what exactly is being tested. It doesn't specify what resource or service connectivity is being tested, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'health_check' or 'auth_test_connection' which might serve similar diagnostic purposes.
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. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'health_check' or 'env_check' that might also test system status. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a new release
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | Release description | |
| name | Yes | Release name | |
| prerelease | No | Is prerelease | |
| provider | Yes | Provider name | |
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| tag | Yes | Release tag |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new release' implies a write operation but doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a release ID). It misses critical details like rate limits, side effects, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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 zero waste—'Create a new release' is front-loaded and directly states the purpose without unnecessary elaboration. It earns its place by being maximally concise while conveying the core action.
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 creation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or return values, making it inadequate for an AI agent to reliably invoke the tool. More detail is needed to compensate for the lack of structured data.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters (e.g., 'body' as release description, 'prerelease' as boolean). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation 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 'Create a new release' states the action and resource clearly but is vague about what a 'release' entails in this context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'release_list' by specifying creation vs. listing, but doesn't clarify the domain (e.g., software releases, database releases) or differentiate from other creation tools like 'backup_create' or 'gitea_create_repo'.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a repository setup), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'release_list' for viewing releases or 'version_bump' for version management. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List releases
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | Yes | Provider name | |
| repo | Yes | Repository name |
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. 'List releases' gives no information about permissions required, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
While concise with only two words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It lacks front-loaded critical information (e.g., what system or context) and doesn't earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity.
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 (a list operation with 2 required parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'releases' are, how results are returned, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool in a server with many sibling tools, more context is needed to guide proper use.
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 adds no meaning beyond what the input schema provides. However, schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both required parameters ('provider' and 'repo'), so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to since the schema is fully documented.
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 'List releases' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'release_list' without adding any meaningful clarification. It doesn't specify what kind of releases (software releases, deployment releases, etc.) or from what system, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'release_create' or other list tools in the server.
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 prerequisites (e.g., authentication), context for use (e.g., after cloning a repo), or differentiate it from similar tools like 'gitea_list_repos' or 'github_list_repos' that might handle releases differently. There's no explicit or implied usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get MCP version information
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.
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: 'Get MCP version information.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by directly conveying the tool's purpose.
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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on return format, error conditions, or integration context. For a basic informational tool, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement in guiding effective use.
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 tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it meets the baseline expectation. No additional parameter information is required or provided, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
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 MCP version information' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('MCP version information'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'version_bump' or 'version_validate' by focusing on retrieval rather than modification or validation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings, 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 use cases like system diagnostics, compatibility checks, or prerequisites. With siblings like 'health_check' and 'ping' that might serve overlapping diagnostic purposes, the lack of explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Bump version number
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| current | Yes | Current version | |
| level | No | Bump level (major, minor, patch) | patch |
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. 'Bump version number' implies a mutation operation (incrementing a version), but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it modifies files in-place, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., creating tags in version control), or handles errors. The description is too vague to inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond the basic action implied by the name.
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 extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary information. Every word ('Bump version number') directly relates to the tool's purpose, with zero waste or redundant phrasing. This minimalism is efficient, though it may contribute to gaps in other dimensions like clarity and guidelines.
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 version-bumping tool (which typically involves mutation and versioning logic), the description is incomplete. No annotations are provided to clarify safety or behavior, and there's no output schema to explain return values (e.g., the new version string). The description lacks context on what the tool actually does beyond the basic action, failing to compensate for the missing structured data. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.
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 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('current' as the current version and 'level' as the bump level with a default). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain format expectations (e.g., semantic versioning), constraints, or examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers parameter details without needing extra description.
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 'Bump version number' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'version_bump'. It specifies the verb 'bump' and resource 'version number', but lacks any detail about what version is being bumped (e.g., software package, project, file) or how it operates. While it distinguishes from some siblings like 'version' or 'version_validate', it doesn't clearly differentiate from potential version-related tools not present in the sibling list.
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 prerequisites, context (e.g., after code changes, for releases), or compare to siblings like 'version' (which might retrieve version info) or 'version_validate' (which might check version validity). There's no explicit or implied usage scenario, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Validate semantic version
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | Yes | Version to validate |
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. The description only states what the tool does ('Validate semantic version') without explaining what validation entails—e.g., whether it checks format compliance, returns success/failure, provides error details, or has side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 extremely concise—just two words—and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text. It's appropriately sized for a simple validation tool, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness in other dimensions.
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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what validation means in practice, what the output might be (e.g., boolean result, error message), or how it differs from sibling tools. While the schema covers the parameter, the overall context for using the tool effectively is lacking.
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 100% description coverage, with the 'version' parameter documented as 'Version to validate'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this—it doesn't clarify what constitutes a valid semantic version, provide examples, or explain validation rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 as 'Validate semantic version', which is a specific verb ('validate') applied to a specific resource ('semantic version'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'version' and 'version_bump' by focusing on validation rather than retrieval or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the description text itself.
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. There are sibling tools like 'version' (likely retrieves version) and 'version_bump' (likely modifies version), but the description doesn't mention these or provide context about when validation is needed versus other version operations. Usage is implied only by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0auth_get_token_infoauth_set_tokenauth_test_connectionbackup_createbackup_listconfig_getconfig_listconfig_setenv_checkgit_addgit_branch_creategit_branch_listgit_branch_switchgit_clonegit_commitgit_initgit_mergegit_pullgit_pushgit_statusgitea_create_repogitea_get_repogitea_list_reposgithub_create_repogithub_list_reposhealth_checkpingrelease_createrelease_listversionversion_bumpversion_validateScored across 32 tools
Most tools have distinct purposes with clear resource-action pairs, such as git_add vs git_commit or config_get vs config_set. However, there is some overlap between health_check, ping, and auth_test_connection, which all test connectivity or status, potentially causing confusion. Additionally, version, version_bump, and version_validate are closely related but serve different functions, which might require careful selection.
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, with clear prefixes like git_, gitea_, github_, auth_, config_, backup_, release_, and version_ for grouping. All names use snake_case uniformly, making them predictable and easy to parse. This consistency aids in understanding the tool set's structure and purpose.
With 32 tools, the count feels excessive for a Git-focused MCP server, as it includes many utility functions like ping, health_check, and env_check that could be consolidated. The scope is broad, covering Git operations, provider integrations (Gitea/GitHub), and system utilities, leading to a bloated set that may overwhelm agents. A more focused set of 15-20 tools would be more appropriate.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for Git operations (e.g., clone, commit, push, merge) and repository management across providers like Gitea and GitHub, with CRUD-like actions for config, backup, and release. Minor gaps include missing update or delete operations for repositories and backups, but agents can likely work around these. The inclusion of utility tools like version and health checks adds to the completeness for the server's broad purpose.
An MCP server that gives your AI access to the source code and docs of all public github repos
Hosted markdown project wikis your team's AI assistants read, search, and update over MCP.
One shared context your team's AI tools read & write over MCP. No re-explaining. Free.
Driflyte MCP server which lets AI assistants query topic-specific knowledge from web and GitHub.
