GitHub 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. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't mention required permissions, rate limits, whether the issue is public/private, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero 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 extremely concise with just one sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations but has a rich input schema (100% coverage) and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, it should do more to compensate for the lack of annotations by explaining behavioral aspects like permissions or error handling, making it incomplete for safe usage.

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%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new issue in a repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'create_pull_request' or 'create_label', which would require specifying that this creates specifically an issue (not a PR, label, etc.).

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., authentication, repository access), when not to use it (e.g., for creating pull requests instead), or refer to related tools like 'update_issue' or 'list_issues' for context.

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