Review all public repositories for a GitHub user to identify quality issues and improvement opportunities.
Revisa todos los repos públicos de un perfil GitHub
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | Usuario de GitHub |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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. 'Review' suggests a read-only analysis, but the description does not state whether it modifies anything, what it returns, whether authentication is needed, or how the bulk review behaves across repos.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the tool's purpose and scope efficiently.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and input, but it fails to clarify expected output or behavioral details. It is minimally viable but leaves an agent guessing about the result of calling the tool.
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 100% and the sole parameter username is already described as 'GitHub user'. The description adds little beyond restating the profile concept, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 a specific verb ('review') and resource ('all public repos of a GitHub profile'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling review_repository, which targets a single repo. The scope is unambiguous.
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 scope 'all public repos of a GitHub profile' implies when to use it versus review_repository, but it never explicitly mentions alternatives or exclusion criteria. The guidance is present only implicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.