Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• github_requestA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It covers authentication ('authenticated request'), read/write capability, path format requirements, query param placement, and body requirements for write requests. However, it does not mention rate limits, error responses, or pagination behavior, which would be valuable for such a generic API client.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is six sentences long, each earning its place: purpose, use cases, API reference link, path rule, query handling, and body handling. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids fluff, making it highly scannable.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The tool is complex (generic REST client) with no output schema or annotations. The description comprehensively covers path construction, query/body usage, and links to full API docs. However, it omits explicit description of the return format (likely the GitHub API response) and error behavior, though these are inferable from the API reference link and the tool's nature.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds contextual meaning: it gives a concrete path example, explains the choice between appending query params to the path vs using the query object, and clarifies that body must be a JSON-serializable object. This enriches the schema descriptions without redundancy.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Make an authenticated request to any GitHub REST API v3 endpoint (read or write).' It also enumerates specific use cases (repos, issues, PRs, etc.), making the scope unmistakable. This is a specific verb+resource description that fully distinguishes the tool's generic nature.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly instructs 'Use this for everything: listing/creating/updating repos, issues, pull requests, comments, files...' and provides practical guidance on constructing paths, handling query parameters, and passing body payloads. Since there are no sibling tools, it clearly positions this as the universal GitHub API access tool.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.