gitea-mcp

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 mentions the HTTP method (GET) and a help operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the read operations entail (e.g., data returned, pagination). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with admin-level access.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a usage tip. Both sentences add value, with no redundant information, making it efficient. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from instructions.

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 (admin operations with 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what operations are available beyond 'help', expected inputs/outputs, and behavioral traits like security implications. This is inadequate for a tool that likely handles sensitive admin 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'operation' can be set to 'help' to list operations, adding some meaning. However, it doesn't describe other possible operations, what 'params' should contain, or how they interact, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.

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 performs 'Gitea admin read operations (GET /admin/*)', which identifies the verb (read), resource (admin operations), and HTTP method. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling 'gitea_read' or explain what 'admin' entails beyond the path pattern, leaving the purpose 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_read' or 'gitea_admin_write'. It mentions 'operation="help" to list' but doesn't clarify if this is the primary use case or how it relates to other operations, offering minimal usage context.

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