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. The description only states the basic action ('List commits') without mentioning any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by 'per_page' and 'page' parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how the tool behaves beyond its inputs.

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 ('List commits in a repository.'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema existence means the description need not explain return values, but it lacks context on behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling. For a list operation with many filtering parameters, more guidance on usage and constraints would improve completeness, but it meets a basic threshold.

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 each parameter well-documented (e.g., 'owner' as 'Repository owner', 'since' as 'ISO 8601 date - only commits after this date'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 'List commits in a repository' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('commits in a repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_commit' (singular) or 'list_pr_commits', which might list commits specific to pull requests, leaving some ambiguity in sibling context.

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. For example, it does not mention when to prefer 'list_commits' over 'get_commit' (for a single commit) or 'list_pr_commits' (for commits in a pull request), nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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