GitHub MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states it's a list operation (implying read-only), but doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a 'collaborator' in this context. The description is technically accurate but lacks important operational context.

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, clear sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward list operation and gets directly to the point 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?

For a read-only list operation with comprehensive schema documentation and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about how this tool fits within the broader GitHub API ecosystem or what distinguishes it from similar listing tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% description coverage. The schema fully documents all 5 parameters including their purposes, defaults, and constraints. The description doesn't compensate with any additional context about parameter usage or relationships.

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 ('collaborators of a repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_org_members' or 'list_user_orgs' that also list people-related entities, so it doesn't reach the highest level of specificity.

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. There's no mention of related tools like 'get_authenticated_user' or 'list_org_members' that might serve similar purposes in different contexts, nor any indication of prerequisites or constraints beyond what's in the schema.

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