OpenCollab MCP

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying it returns 'top 10 contributors' and 'ranked by number of commits,' which clarifies the ranking method and output limit beyond what annotations indicate. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds specific behavioral details in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 moderate complexity, rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It clearly states the tool's purpose and key behavioral traits (top 10 ranking by commits). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus siblings, which slightly reduces completeness.

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%, but the description doesn't mention parameters at all. The schema defines 'owner' and 'repo' parameters with good descriptions, so the baseline is 3 since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get the top contributors') and resources ('of a repository'), including what information is returned ('with their commit counts and profiles'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on contributor ranking rather than analysis, health checks, or issue-related functions.

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 implies usage context by specifying it returns 'top 10 contributors ranked by number of commits,' suggesting it's for ranking analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'opencollab_analyze_profile' for individual profiles or 'opencollab_repo_health' for broader metrics, leaving some ambiguity about optimal use cases.

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