gitea-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'read operations (GET)' which implies non-destructive and read-only behavior, but doesn't cover authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response formats. The 'help' feature is mentioned, but overall behavioral context is insufficient for a tool with complex parameters.

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 very concise with two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. There's no wasted text, but it may be overly brief given the tool's complexity. It efficiently conveys key points without redundancy.

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 no annotations, no output schema, 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and nested objects, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to use the params object, or provide enough context for safe and effective use. The mention of 'help' is a partial mitigation but insufficient overall.

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%, and the description adds minimal param info: it mentions 'operation' with a 'help' example but doesn't explain what operations are available or the purpose of the 'params' object. With 2 parameters (one required) and nested objects, this leaves semantics largely undocumented, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 'Gitea read operations (GET)' which clarifies it's for read operations but is vague about what resources or endpoints it covers. It distinguishes from siblings like gitea_create, gitea_update, and gitea_delete by being read-only, but doesn't specify scope beyond 'operations'. The mention of 'operation="help" to list' adds some specificity but doesn't fully define purpose.

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 minimal guidance: it implies use for read operations and suggests using 'help' to list options, but gives no explicit when-to-use rules, no exclusions, and no comparison to siblings like gitea_admin_read or gitea_version. It lacks context on when to choose this tool over alternatives, leaving usage ambiguous.

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