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, and openWorldHint=true, indicating it's a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds some context by mentioning the insights gained (accepted PR types, merge speed, active reviewers), but doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds moderate value without contradictions.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second sentence elaborates on the benefits without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place by adding value, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (a read operation with repository input), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose and usage context but could be more explicit about sibling tool differentiation. Overall, it provides sufficient guidance for an AI agent to understand when and how to use it.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter (a nested object with 'owner' and 'repo'), and schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema lacks descriptions for these fields. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond implying repository context. Since there are 0 parameters with explicit semantics in the description, and schema coverage is low, the baseline is 3—it doesn't compensate for the coverage gap but doesn't worsen it either.

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: 'Show recently merged pull requests in a repository.' It specifies the verb ('show') and resource ('recently merged pull requests'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'opencollab_repo_activity_pulse' or 'opencollab_contributor_leaderboard', which might also involve PR-related data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides implied usage context by stating it 'Helps contributors see what kind of PRs get accepted, how fast they're merged, and who the active reviewers are.' This suggests it's for analysis and learning, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to 'opencollab_find_issues' or 'opencollab_repo_activity_pulse') or any exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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