Track open source repositories by weekly star gains to spot rising projects and emerging trends.
Fastest-rising repos in the index, by stars gained this week.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "trending"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose the meaningful behavioral traits: the ranking metric (stars gained) and the time window (this week). It omits staleness/refresh cadence, ordering guarantees for ties, and whether the ranking is global or category-scoped.
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?
One sentence, zero padding, with the distinguishing concept (fastest-rising / stars gained this week) front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing signal.
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 one-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say more about what each result contains (e.g., repo name, star delta) and confirm it is a safe read. The ranking basis is covered; the return shape and default result count are not.
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 single `limit` parameter is never mentioned in the description, so no meaning is added beyond the schema. The schema does carry a default of 10 and a 1-50 range, making the parameter largely self-explanatory, which keeps this at a baseline 3 rather than lower.
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?
States a specific resource (repos) and a precise ranking concept (fastest-rising by stars gained this week), which is clearly distinct from search_repos, get_repo, and list_categories. It stops short of naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the differentiation rather than being told.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the browse-what's-hot tool. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over search_repos (e.g., no query needed, discovery-oriented) and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.