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, openWorldHint: true), covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context by specifying the criteria ('older than 30 days with no assignees') and the outcome ('hidden easy wins'), which clarifies what the tool returns beyond just being a read operation. 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds clarifying details in the second. It uses no wasted words, efficiently conveying the tool's function and criteria in two concise sentences, 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 low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects), rich annotations (covering read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world behavior), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It specifies the filtering criteria and purpose well, though it lacks parameter details, which is partially mitigated by the structured fields.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, such as 'owner' and 'repo', leaving their semantics unexplained. However, since there are only 2 parameters and the tool's purpose is clear, the baseline score of 3 reflects minimal adequacy without compensating for the coverage gap.

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 with specific verbs ('Find old, unclaimed issues') and resources ('in a repo'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'opencollab_find_issues' by specifying criteria (older than 30 days, no assignees) and framing them as 'hidden easy wins'. This provides precise differentiation beyond generic issue-finding.

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 context by stating 'Find old, unclaimed issues... that no one is working on', suggesting it's for identifying low-hanging fruit or abandoned tasks. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'opencollab_find_issues' for broader searches, leaving some guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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