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 tool retrieves a gist and its contents, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or the response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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—a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it efficient and easy to parse, though it could benefit from more detail for completeness.

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 low complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context like authentication or error handling, and with no annotations, it doesn't fully compensate for these gaps, making it only partially complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'gist_id' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, this baseline score of 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific gist with its file contents'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_gists' or 'update_gist', which would require mentioning it retrieves a single gist by ID rather than listing or modifying.

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 sibling tools like 'list_gists' for browsing gists or 'update_gist' for modifications, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing the gist ID or authentication requirements.

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