GitHub MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'public information,' which hints at read-only access and no authentication requirements, but fails to specify rate limits, error conditions (e.g., for non-existent users), or the structure of the returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it's not misleading.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get public information about a GitHub user') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy to parse and understand quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 reasonably complete. It covers the basic purpose and scope ('public information'), but could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., rate limits or error handling) to fully compensate for the lack of annotations, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 the 'username' parameter clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('Get') and resource ('public information about a GitHub user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'get_authenticated_user' by specifying 'public information' rather than authenticated user data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other user-related tools like 'search_users' or 'list_user_orgs', keeping it from a perfect score.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'public information,' suggesting this is for retrieving publicly available user data rather than authenticated or private information. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_users' (for finding users by criteria) or 'get_authenticated_user' (for the current user's data), leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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