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 states the action but doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, how pagination works (implied by parameters but not explained), or what the output format looks like. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a straightforward list operation, making it highly efficient.

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, 1 required), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, pagination behavior) that would be helpful for an AI agent, especially with no annotations. It meets basic requirements but leaves gaps in practical usage.

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 mentions 'members of an organization' which aligns with the 'org' parameter, but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100% (all parameters are well-documented in the schema), the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the comprehensive schema.

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 ('members of an organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_collaborators' or 'list_user_orgs', which prevents a perfect score, but the core functionality is unambiguous.

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 like 'list_collaborators' (for repository collaborators) or 'list_user_orgs' (for organizations a user belongs to). It also doesn't mention prerequisites such as authentication or permissions needed to list organization members.

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