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. It states it's a list operation (implying read-only) but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond what's in the schema, error conditions, or what 'classic projects' entails. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the core functionality.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), 100% schema coverage for parameters, and no complex behavioral requirements, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a tool with no annotations and sibling tools that handle similar resources (projects_v2, org_projects), it should provide more context about when to use this specific tool.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (owner, repo, state, per_page, page). It doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide additional context about their usage.

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 ('projects in a repository'), specifying 'classic projects' to distinguish from other project types like 'projects_v2'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_projects_v2' or 'list_org_projects' beyond the 'classic projects' hint.

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_projects_v2' or 'list_org_projects'. It mentions 'classic projects' but doesn't explain what that means or when to choose classic over v2 projects. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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