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 is to 'get' comments, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify pagination behavior (the 'first' parameter suggests it returns a subset), rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by stating the essential action.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for description details. However, the lack of behavioral context and usage guidelines leaves gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to select and invoke the tool correctly in varied scenarios.

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 input schema fully documents all parameters (owner, repo, number, first). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying a discussion context, which is already covered by the parameter names and schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get comments on a discussion,' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_issue_comments' or 'list_review_comments,' leaving ambiguity about what type of discussion this refers to (e.g., GitHub Discussions vs. other contexts).

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 discussion number), exclusions, or how it differs from similar tools like 'get_discussion' or 'list_discussions,' which are present in the sibling list.

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