GitHub MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'List discussions' but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 states the core purpose without waste. However, it could be more front-loaded with key details, but it's appropriately sized for a basic tool.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on behavior, usage, or integration with siblings. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but overall completeness is limited.

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%, providing full documentation for all parameters (owner, repo, first, category_id). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 states the tool's purpose ('List discussions in a repository') with a clear verb ('List') and resource ('discussions'), but it lacks specificity about scope or differentiation from sibling tools like 'list_discussion_categories' or 'get_discussion'. It's adequate but vague about what 'list' entails (e.g., pagination, sorting).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_discussion_categories' or 'get_discussion', leaving the agent without context for selection.

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