connector_github_fetchFetch a single GitHub resource by its native resource ID for local-first MCP workflows that need targeted data access.
Fetch a single resource from GitHub by its ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource_id | Yes | Native resource ID to fetch |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'Fetch', implying a safe read, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. This directly contradicts the operation described, so per the scoring rule this is a 1. No useful behavioral context (auth needs, side effects, return behavior) is provided either.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a trivial one-parameter tool, even if it is under-specified on 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?
For a simple fetch tool with full parameter documentation and no output schema, the description still leaves the resource type ambiguous and gives no auth, error, or return context. More importantly, it does not reconcile its 'read' framing with the destructive annotations, leaving the agent uncertain about behavior.
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 baseline is 3. The description only restates 'by its ID' and adds no meaning beyond the schema's 'Native resource ID to fetch'.
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 (Fetch), resource (GitHub resource), scope (single, by ID). The 'by its ID' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from connector_github_search, though 'resource' remains generic and it does not explicitly name GitHub resource types (issues, PRs, repos).
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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, no exclusions. The sibling connector_github_search and connector_github_act exist but the description does not say when to prefer fetch-by-ID over search or act.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.