gitea-mcp

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 mentions 'write operations' and HTTP methods (POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE), implying mutations, but doesn't describe permissions required, side effects, error handling, or rate limits. The 'help' operation hint is useful but insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior in typical use. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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 concise with two sentences: one stating the tool's scope and methods, and another providing a helpful tip. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words. However, the structure could be improved by separating the 'help' functionality into a distinct note 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 complexity (admin write operations with multiple HTTP methods), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and presence of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It hints at a discovery mechanism but fails to explain key aspects like required permissions, what resources are affected, error scenarios, or how to use the 'params' object. This is insufficient for safe and effective tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'operation="help" to list', which adds meaning for the 'operation' parameter by suggesting a discovery function. However, it doesn't explain what other operations are available, what 'params' should contain, or how they map to the HTTP methods and paths. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is inadequate compensation.

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 write operations' with specific HTTP methods and path patterns, which gives a general purpose. However, it's vague about what specific resources or actions these operations target, and it doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like 'gitea_admin_read' beyond the write/read distinction. The mention of 'operation="help" to list' adds some utility but doesn't define the core purpose precisely.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'operation="help" to list', which implies a discovery mechanism but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. With siblings like 'gitea_create', 'gitea_delete', and 'gitea_update', there's no indication of how this admin tool differs or when it should be preferred, leaving the agent without clear usage direction.

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