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 only states 'Gitea create operations (POST)', which implies a write action but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with potential mutations and no structured safety hints.

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 with two short sentences, which is efficient. However, it's under-specified rather than concise—it lacks essential details that would make it helpful. The structure is front-loaded but doesn't earn its place with meaningful content.

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 tool's complexity (2 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool creates, how parameters work, or behavioral traits, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 minimal context for one parameter but doesn't explain the 'operation' field's purpose (e.g., what operations are available) or the 'params' object's role. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 'Gitea create operations (POST)' restates the tool name 'gitea_create' and adds only the HTTP method, which is tautological. It mentions 'operation="help" to list' but doesn't specify what is being created (e.g., repositories, issues, users) or distinguish it from sibling tools like gitea_admin_write or gitea_update, leaving the purpose 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. It doesn't explain its role relative to siblings like gitea_admin_write (for admin tasks) or gitea_update (for modifications), nor does it mention prerequisites or contexts for creation operations. The 'help' hint is minimal and doesn't constitute meaningful usage advice.

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