OpenCollab MCP

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

The annotations already provide key behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, repeatable query with external data. The description adds context about the tool's focus on 'welcoming to contributors,' which isn't covered by annotations, but it doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or output format details. 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: the first sentence directly states the purpose, and the second adds usage context. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 similarity search with 2 sub-parameters), annotations cover safety and behavior well, and an output schema exists (so return values needn't be explained). The description adds purpose and usage context, but parameter semantics are lacking due to 0% schema coverage. Overall, it's mostly complete but could benefit from parameter details.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool has 1 parameter (an object with 'owner' and 'repo' sub-parameters). The description doesn't add any semantic details about these parameters beyond implying they refer to a repository ('repo X'). It doesn't explain format, constraints, or examples, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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: 'Find repositories similar to a given one based on topics and language.' This specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('repositories'), and criteria ('similar... based on topics and language'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'opencollab_compare_repos' or 'opencollab_trending_repos,' which may also involve repository comparisons or discovery.

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 usage: 'If you like contributing to repo X, this finds other repos in the same domain that are also welcoming to contributors.' This implies the tool is for finding similar, contributor-friendly repositories, which helps guide when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, such as for non-contribution-related similarity searches.

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