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. The description adds context by specifying the types of issues (low-effort tags) and the time frame (weekend or 1-2 hours), which is useful beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or detailed search behavior, so it earns a baseline 3 for adding some value without contradictions.

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 necessary details in the second. Both sentences earn their place by defining the tool's scope and search criteria without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with zero waste or unnecessary elaboration.

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 (search with filtering), rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clearly states what the tool does and the context for use. However, it lacks details on the 'language' parameter's semantics, which is a gap since the schema coverage is low. With output schema handling return values, the description is sufficient but not fully comprehensive, warranting a score of 4.

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, as the schema only provides a basic description ('Programming language'). The description does not mention or explain the 'language' parameter at all, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage. This leaves the parameter's role in the search (e.g., how it filters issues) undocumented, resulting in a score of 2 for minimal added meaning.

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', 'Searches for') and resources ('small, quick issues', 'issues labelled documentation, typo, test, chore, or other low-effort tags'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'opencollab_find_issues' by specifying the type of issues (weekend-friendly, low-effort) and the specific labels it searches for, making its scope explicit and unique.

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: for finding 'small, quick issues perfect for a weekend or 1-2 hour contribution.' It implies usage by specifying the target audience and time constraints. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'opencollab_find_issues' for general issue searches, which limits the score to 4.

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