OpenCollab MCP

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

Annotations already provide excellent behavioral hints (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world). The description adds valuable context by specifying which dependency files are checked (package.json, pyproject.toml, etc.) and that it 'shows what libraries and frameworks the project uses' - information not covered by annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence states the core purpose, second sentence provides specific file examples and outcome. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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, excellent annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), and the existence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains what the tool does, which files it examines, and what information it reveals. The output schema will handle return value documentation.

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 input schema clearly documents the 'owner' and 'repo' parameters with descriptions and constraints. The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but the schema provides adequate documentation. With only 2 well-documented parameters, this meets the baseline expectation.

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 ('inspect', 'check', 'read', 'show') and resources ('repo's tech stack', 'dependency files', 'libraries and frameworks'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing specifically on dependency analysis rather than broader repo analysis, profile analysis, or issue tracking.

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 (analyzing a project's dependencies) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'opencollab_repo_languages' or 'opencollab_repo_health'. It provides no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools.

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