GitHub MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the user context but lacks critical behavioral details: required permissions, rate limits, whether creation is irreversible, or what happens on failure. 'Create' implies a mutation, but no safety or operational context is given.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently includes the user context, making it easy to parse.

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 complexity (mutation with 4 parameters), no annotations, but with a complete input schema and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidance, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters (name, description, private, auto_init). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 repository'), specifying it's for the authenticated user. It distinguishes from siblings like 'fork_repository' (which creates a fork) and 'list_repositories' (which lists), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other creation tools like 'create_gist' or 'create_issue'.

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 minimal guidance, stating it's for the authenticated user but not when to use it versus alternatives like 'fork_repository' or prerequisites. No explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with sibling creation tools is included.

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