OpenCollab MCP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds behavioral context by specifying search criteria (mentorship labels, contributing guides, programs), which isn't in the annotations. However, it doesn't detail rate limits, authentication needs, or output format, leaving some gaps.

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 main purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific search criteria in the second. Both sentences are necessary and earn their place, with no wasted words. It's 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 has annotations (covering safety and idempotency) and an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is somewhat complete. However, it lacks parameter details (0% schema coverage with no compensation) and doesn't fully explain behavioral aspects like search scope or limitations, making it adequate but with gaps.

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 description doesn't mention the 'language' parameter at all. The schema defines 'language' as a required string for programming language, but the description fails to add any semantic meaning or usage context for this parameter, leaving it undocumented beyond the schema.

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: 'Find repositories that actively mentor newcomers.' It specifies the verb 'find' and resource 'repositories' with the qualification 'that actively mentor newcomers.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'opencollab_find_issues' or 'opencollab_trending_repos' beyond the mentorship focus.

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 mentioning specific criteria (mentorship labels, contributing guides, programs like GSoC). It suggests when to use this tool—for finding repos suitable for beginners—but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings. The guidelines are helpful but not comprehensive.

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