check_repoDetermine whether a GitHub repository fits a user by checking facts, existing use, and matching profile entries; fetch it from GitHub when not indexed.
Judge whether one GitHub repository fits the user: its facts, whether they already use it, and which profile entries it matches. Looks the repo up on GitHub if it is not indexed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | owner/name or URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety and network access are covered. The description still contributes beyond them by disclosing the on-demand GitHub lookup when the repo is not indexed (implying latency and external calls) and by outlining the content of the judgment returned.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the fallback lookup behavior. No filler and nothing redundant with the title.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the components of the evaluation (facts, existing usage, profile matches). It is nearly complete for a one-parameter read tool; only the return format and any caching or failure behavior are left unstated.
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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'owner/name or URL', and the description adds nothing about accepted formats or normalization. With 100% schema coverage the schema carries the parameter burden, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb (judge) and a precisely scoped resource (one GitHub repository), and enumerates what the judgment covers: facts, whether the user already uses it, and matching profile entries. The word 'one' distinguishes it from plural siblings like find_candidates and search_repos, though those siblings are never named explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: this is the tool for evaluating a single known repo, which contrasts with the discovery-oriented siblings. There is no explicit 'use this when / use search_repos instead' guidance, so the agent must infer the selection rule from the word 'one'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.