OpenCollab MCP

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context about what the tool returns ('detailed language breakdown,' 'percentage of each programming language'), but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, with the first sentence stating the core purpose, followed by two concise sentences that add value without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying the output and usage context, with zero waste.

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 (simple read operation with two parameters), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It provides purpose, output details, and usage context without needing to explain parameters or behavioral traits already covered elsewhere.

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 has a single nested object 'params' with 'owner' and 'repo' properties that are well-described in the schema itself (e.g., 'Repository owner (e.g., 'facebook')'). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for the low coverage.

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 ('Get a detailed language breakdown') and resource ('for a repository'), distinguishing it from siblings by focusing on programming language analysis rather than issues, PRs, or other repository metrics. It explicitly mentions 'percentage of each programming language used in the codebase,' which is unique among the listed tools.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Helps you decide if you have the right skills before contributing'), which implicitly suggests it's for pre-contribution assessment. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as 'opencollab_contribution_readiness' which might overlap in purpose.

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