discover_toolsDiscover available compound tools, their actions, and parameters by domain or free-text query to identify the right GitHub project management operation.
Discover available compound tools, their actions, and parameters. Always available regardless of group filter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Free-text search across tool names and descriptions | |
| domain | No | Filter tools by domain |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the availability constraint, which is real added context, but says nothing about what the caller gets back or how results should be consumed.
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?
Two short front-loaded sentences with no filler. Only minor overlap with the schema-level description, which restates the same discovery idea.
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 discovery/meta tool with no output schema, the description should at least sketch what is returned (tool names, actions, parameter summaries) so the agent knows how to act on results. It is adequate but leaves that gap.
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% and both parameters (query, domain enum) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter behavior, such as whether query and domain combine or override each other, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource — discover compound tools, their actions, and parameters — which is clearly distinct from the manage_* siblings. It doesn't name those siblings, but the meta nature of the tool makes the distinction obvious.
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?
'Always available regardless of group filter' gives a useful availability hint, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call it (e.g., before invoking an unfamiliar manage_* tool, or when the domain enum choices are unclear). Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.