OpenCollab MCP

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

Annotations provide read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints, which the description does not contradict. The description adds valuable context by listing the specific checks performed (activity recency, community size, PR merge patterns, open issues, essential files), enhancing transparency about what the tool evaluates beyond the safe operational profile indicated by 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and score range, followed by a concise bullet-style list of checks. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and easy to parse for key information.

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, rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete. It clearly explains what the tool does, the scoring aspects, and aligns with annotations, leaving no significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 does not add parameter details, but since there are only two straightforward parameters (repository identifier), the schema alone is sufficient for understanding. The description's focus on scoring criteria compensates adequately for the lack of parameter elaboration.

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 specific action ('Score a repository's health and contributor-friendliness') with a defined output range (0-100). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on comprehensive health assessment rather than specific aspects like activity pulse, languages, or issue analysis, making its purpose distinct and well-defined.

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 evaluating repository health and contributor-friendliness, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'opencollab_repo_activity_pulse' or 'opencollab_contribution_readiness'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context partially inferred rather than clearly guided.

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