OpenCollab MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the result limit ('up to 15'), recency filter ('recently created'), and source scope ('public repos'), which helps the agent understand practical constraints.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: first sentence defines the tool's function, second sentence adds important behavioral details (limit, recency, scope) without redundancy.

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 (single parameter, read-only operation), rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, constraints, and scope, leaving detailed parameter and return value documentation to the structured fields.

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 carries full burden. It explains that the parameter is for 'a given programming language,' which clarifies the purpose of the single 'language' parameter. However, it doesn't provide format examples or constraints beyond what's implied.

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 specific action ('Find beginner-friendly open-source issues') and target resource ('labelled "good first issue" for a given programming language'), distinguishing it from siblings like opencollab_analyze_profile or opencollab_recent_prs. It provides precise scope about what kind of issues are retrieved.

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 (finding beginner-friendly issues for a specific language) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like opencollab_weekend_issues or opencollab_stale_issue_finder. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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