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. It states the action ('Create') but doesn't describe what happens upon execution—such as whether it requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what the typical response includes, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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—just two words—and front-loaded with the core action. There is zero wasted language, making it efficient for quick comprehension. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with 9 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and any mention of the tool's scope or constraints. While the output schema may cover response structure, the description doesn't prepare the agent for execution nuances, making it inadequate for a tool of this nature.

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 each parameter well-documented in the input schema (e.g., 'tag_name' as 'Tag name for the release'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting. No parameters are explained in the description text itself.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('a new release'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'get_latest_release' or 'list_releases' by specifying creation rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_issue' or 'create_pull_request' beyond the resource name.

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., repository access), when not to use it (e.g., for updating releases), or refer to sibling tools like 'get_release_by_tag' for checking existing releases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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