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 it's a list operation, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like pagination details (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output contains. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (7 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 there, but the description lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, leaving gaps that could hinder effective tool selection and invocation.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the reference types (branch, tag, or SHA), which slightly elaborates on the 'ref' parameter but doesn't provide additional syntax or usage details beyond what the schema already covers. 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('check runs') with scope ('for a reference'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_workflow_runs' or 'list_commit_statuses' that might also relate to repository checks or statuses, which prevents 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_check_run' for a single check run or other list tools for different repository entities. It mentions the reference scope but doesn't clarify exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage context implied at best.

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