Skippr Extension MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Gets' but not explicit), error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Gets full details for a specific Skippr issue') and adds a useful detail ('including raw markdown content'). There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the tool's function without redundancy.

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 (3 required parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete behavioral transparency, it lacks context on operational aspects like safety or constraints. The description covers the 'what' but not the 'how' or 'when,' making it incomplete for full agent understanding.

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 100%, with all three parameters (projectId, reviewId, issueId) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying these IDs are needed to fetch issue details. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 action ('Gets') and resource ('full details for a specific Skippr issue'), including the specific content type ('raw markdown content'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'skippr_list_issues' by specifying retrieval of details for a single issue rather than listing multiple issues. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other detail-retrieval tools if they exist, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid project, review, and issue ID), nor does it contrast with siblings like 'skippr_verify_issue_fix' which might also involve issue details. Usage is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated.

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