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 that it 'Produces an impact tier (MASSIVE/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW) and a suggested resume line,' which gives useful context on output format beyond annotations, but doesn't detail how the estimation works or any limitations.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently states the output format, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 annotations cover safety and idempotency, and an output schema exists (implied by context signals), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the output includes an impact tier and resume line, which helps the agent understand what to expect, though it could benefit from more behavioral context like estimation criteria.

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 defines 'owner' and 'repo' parameters with descriptions. The tool description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate schema coverage without extra value.

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: 'Estimate the impact of contributing to a specific repository.' It specifies the action (estimate impact) and resource (repository), but doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'opencollab_contribution_readiness' or 'opencollab_repo_health' which might overlap in assessing repository suitability for contributions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'opencollab_contribution_readiness' for readiness assessment or 'opencollab_repo_health' for health metrics, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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