OpenCollab MCP

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context by specifying what information is included (descriptions and open issue counts) and the tool's goal (helping contributors discover label types), which enhances understanding beyond the annotations.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded and efficient. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second adds value by explaining the tool's utility, with no wasted words or 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 low complexity (1 parameter), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose and usage context without needing to repeat structured information.

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 compensates by clarifying that parameters specify a repository ('in a repository'), aligning with the schema's 'owner' and 'repo' fields. It adds semantic meaning by linking parameters to the tool's purpose, though it doesn't detail parameter formats or constraints 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 ('List all labels') and resources ('in a repository'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on labels with descriptions and issue counts. It provides concrete examples of label types (beginner-friendly issues, bugs, features, documentation tasks), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 for contributors to discover labels, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to sibling tools like 'opencollab_find_issues' or 'opencollab_issue_complexity'). It provides some context ('Helps contributors discover...') but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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