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), so the description does not need to repeat these. It adds useful context by specifying the search criteria ('recently created repos with good-first-issue labels') and sorting method ('by stars'), which are not covered by annotations. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 main purpose in the first sentence and adds specific details in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying scope and sorting without any wasted words. The structure is efficient and easy 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 (1 parameter, annotations provide safety info, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and how results are filtered and sorted. However, it lacks details on the 'language' parameter's effect, which is a gap since the output schema's existence doesn't fully compensate for this omission in 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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage in the schema itself (the schema only provides a title and type). The description does not mention the 'language' parameter at all, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage. This leaves the parameter's role and impact on the search undocumented beyond the schema's basic field definition.

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 trending repositories', 'Searches for recently created repos') and resources ('repositories', 'repos with good-first-issue labels'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'opencollab_find_issues' by focusing on trending repositories seeking contributors rather than general issue 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 when to use this tool: to find trending repositories actively seeking contributors, sorted by stars. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as 'opencollab_find_issues' for general issue searching.

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