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 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., metadata, statistics). For a tool with no annotations, 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 with a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 (2 required parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete for its core purpose. However, it lacks context on usage scenarios, behavioral traits (due to no annotations), and sibling differentiation, which could improve completeness for agent decision-making.

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 clear documentation for 'owner' and 'repo' parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples (e.g., GitHub usernames) or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but there's no extra value from the description.

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 tool's purpose with 'Get detailed information about a repository,' which specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('repository'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_repositories' (which lists multiple) and 'create_repository' (which creates new ones). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'detailed information' includes, which could be more specific.

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 needs), compare to similar tools like 'get_organization' or 'get_user', or specify use cases (e.g., for repository metadata vs. contents). This leaves the agent with minimal context for selection.

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