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 only states the basic action ('List pull requests') without mentioning pagination behavior (implied by 'per_page' and 'page' parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it front-loaded and 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 that there's an output schema (not shown but indicated in context signals), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with 9 parameters, no annotations, and multiple sibling listing tools, the description is too minimal—it doesn't provide context about filtering, sorting, or pagination behaviors that would help an agent use it effectively beyond the basic schema.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema itself (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'state', 'sort', etc.). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('pull requests in a repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'list_issues' or 'list_pr_reviews', which also list repository items, so it doesn't fully differentiate itself within the 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. There are many sibling tools for listing various repository items (e.g., list_issues, list_commits, list_branches), but the description doesn't help an agent choose between them or specify any prerequisites or exclusions for using this tool.

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