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 valuable context beyond this: it specifies the 30-day timeframe and the types of metrics returned (commit frequency, issue/PR activity, momentum). This helps the agent understand the tool's scope and output format, compensating for the lack of output schema details in the description.

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 core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific details in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying timeframe and metrics. No wasted words or redundancy, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 (analyzing repo activity), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the 30-day window and key metrics, though it could benefit from mentioning sibling differentiation or parameter context. The annotations and output schema reduce the burden on the description.

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 doesn't mention parameters at all. The input schema defines 'owner' and 'repo' parameters with good descriptions in the schema itself. Since the description adds no parameter information, it doesn't compensate for the low coverage, but the schema handles the basics adequately, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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: 'Get an activity pulse for a repo over the last 30 days' with specific metrics listed (commit frequency, issue open/close rate, PR activity, momentum trend). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('repo'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'opencollab_repo_health' or 'opencollab_trending_repos' which might overlap in analyzing repository activity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a 30-day timeframe and specific metrics, but doesn't compare to siblings like 'opencollab_repo_health' (which might offer broader health metrics) or 'opencollab_trending_repos' (which might focus on popularity). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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