gitea-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral information. It mentions PUT/PATCH methods which imply mutation operations, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, side effects, or what happens on success/failure. The 'help' operation hint is useful but doesn't compensate for the lack of basic behavioral context for a mutation 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 extremely concise (two short phrases) with zero wasted words, but this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification. While front-loaded with the core concept, it lacks necessary detail. The structure is simple but incomplete rather than efficiently comprehensive.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and 2 parameters (one being a nested object), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what can be updated, how to format requests, what permissions are needed, or what to expect in return. The 'help' operation hint is insufficient compensation for the missing context.

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 but provides almost no parameter information. It mentions 'operation="help" to list' which gives one example value for the 'operation' parameter, but doesn't explain what other operations exist, what the 'params' object should contain, or how parameters map to actual Gitea updates. For a tool with 2 parameters (one required) and nested objects, this is inadequate.

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 update operations (PUT/PATCH)' which provides a vague purpose - it mentions HTTP methods but not what specific resources are updated. It distinguishes from siblings like 'gitea_create' and 'gitea_delete' by implying modification rather than creation/deletion, but doesn't specify what gets updated (repositories, users, issues, etc.). The 'operation="help" to list' adds some functionality but doesn't clarify the core 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 mentions using 'operation="help" to list' which suggests this tool can self-document, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned (like when to use gitea_admin_write vs this tool), no prerequisites are stated, and there's no context about when this general update tool should be chosen over more specific siblings.

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