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 states 'delete operations (DELETE)', which implies destructive actions, but doesn't clarify what gets destroyed, whether changes are reversible, or any authentication or rate limit requirements. The mention of operation='help' hints at a help feature, but overall, the description lacks critical behavioral details for a destructive tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently concise, as it lacks necessary details. Every sentence earns its place by introducing the tool and a usage tip, but overall brevity comes at the cost of 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 tool's complexity (destructive operations, 2 parameters with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what resources are deleted, the full range of operations, expected inputs/outputs, or error handling. For a delete tool in a Gitea context with siblings, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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?

The schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'operation' and implies it can be set to 'help', but doesn't explain other possible values or what 'params' object should contain. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to adequately document the parameters for a tool with nested objects and no schema descriptions.

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 delete operations (DELETE). operation="help" to list.' provides a vague purpose. It mentions 'delete operations' but doesn't specify what resources are deleted (e.g., repositories, issues, users) or what the tool actually does beyond the generic term 'delete'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'gitea_create' and 'gitea_update' by indicating deletion, but lacks specificity about the target resource.

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 offers minimal guidance: it suggests using operation='help' to list options, implying this tool might support multiple delete operations. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gitea_admin_write' or 'gitea_update', nor does it provide context on prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is incomplete and lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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